6 ms·

YipYipYip. This is the blue wart in the green sea [0]. The system drives until you should have taken over and died. The situations that are detectable as faulty

YipYipYip. This is the blue wart in the green sea [0]. The system drives until you should have taken over and died. The situations that are detectable as faulty are not the lethal ones typically. As far as I remember, Volvo denied to implement Level3 years ago [1], which is the only grown-up and responsible answer to this problem. [0] https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/gallery/cm/articles/press-releases/2018/12/j3016-levels-of-automation-image.png https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/gallery/cm/articles/pre... [1] https://auto2xtech.com/volvo-to-skip-level-3-autonomous-mode/ https://auto2xtech.com/volvo-to-skip-level-3-autonomous-mode...

Gravityloss 6y ago
Thanks for linking to good source material. > When the feature requests, you must drive Is there some kind of expected delay from the system requesting driver attention to the driver assuming control? Ie something like 3 seconds?
- buran77 6y ago
  That's the problem, no such system can guarantee it gives you a minimum amount of time. Some situations appear and develop in less than 3 seconds (think small child jumping in front of your car from between parked cars). You might only have 1s to react and if you are not "plugged in" and fully attentive at that instant you missed the window to react. The more you "disconnect" as a driver, the less likely you are to take over in a split second and this has been proven again and again with humans. A system that works 90% of the time is probably the worst because it's good enough to give you confidence but bad enough that it's a false one. The driver is in the position to buy the advertised "you can disconnect" feature but then only be able to use it under explicit risk of harm to themselves and others. It actually increases the mental load as drivers will try to both "disconnect" (type on the phone, watch a movie) while also "paying attention to the road". Of course both can't be reasonably done at the same time so both experiences are sacrificed. It's like encouraging people to take a taxi after drinking but then expecting them to take over whenever the driver makes a mistake and holding them responsible and accountable for the outcome. You won't enjoy the drink, or the drive. These half-way solutions are great for marketing and for people who are all about the hype. But not only are they the bad compromises, they're also fueled by bad and incomplete data, and by marketing departments wanting to sell more. Almost no self driving outfit provides data on how many times did a human make the slightest correction while the self driving was enabled. Or out of all possible driving conditions, what percentage of them were covered by those self driving miles. My personal philosophy is that cars are either self driving or they're not. Meaning they can either match an average human driver in all conditions they're expected to encounter over the lifetime, or they're just assisting the driver. If it's self driving except when it's not then it's just like a student driver. You wouldn't confuse them with being perfect drivers just because of their perfect safety record, given the supervisor corrects their every mistake.
  - drran 6y ago
    > Some situations appear and develop in less than 3 seconds (think small child jumping in front of your car from between parked cars). You might only have 1s to react and if you are not "plugged in" and fully attentive at that instant you missed the window to react. Yeah, humans are weak at this task, which leads to numerous deaths on roads. Can we develop a tech for this? Something, that will watch the road and will assist the driver.
    - mavhc 6y ago
      Humans already kill 3000 people every day while driving
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Politics is emotional, and emotions do not always agree with Utilitarian ethics. Self driving doesn’t just need to be safer, people also need to feel that it is.
        Spivak 6y ago
        Sorta. Self-driving cars cannot a injure or kill someone in any situation where a human wouldn’t have. I feel this too. I would rather have a greater risk of death but be in control of my fate.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        Americans drive more than 3 trillion miles per year.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      That's exactly the sort of task I'd expect an automated vehicle to perform better on. If they can't beat humans at that they're not ready for the public road. Of course hand-off could be for liability purposes, like Car: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm about to plow into a school, this is your problem now" Dave: [looks up briefly from his game of candy crush before dying in a crash]
hkhjghg 6y ago
>YipYipYip... Is this a Sesame Street reference? https://youtu.be/KTc3PsW5ghQ?t=97 https://youtu.be/KTc3PsW5ghQ?t=97
- jeffreygoesto 6y ago
  YipYipYip =¦-D Com...pjutaaa.
sitkack 6y ago
Volvo is absolutely making the right call here. There is too much irrational exuberance around SDC. The obvious answer is to apply AI to the entire system, not just the car navigating the road * Is the driver paying attention, how much attention should they be paying verses the conditions? * What is the environment like, how should I react, refuse to drive? Go slowly? Honk? We already have self driving vehicles, they are called Mules. Why not make artificial mules instead of artificial pole position. The car should be an active participant, more of a copilot and than a blind automaton. Self driving cars should be shown to have passed a repeatable rigorous adversarial gauntlet before being allowed on the road. And the individual cars should have to be re-certified every 6 months by retaking the test.
- dm319 6y ago
  As a side note - I think humans should require retaking their test on a regular basis. Maybe every 5 years, and just a short 'refresher' test on the way home from work. It would help find those who simply can't drive safely anymore, and may dissuade others who don't think it's worth going through that process. It would also take a lot of stress and anxiety from the problem of families who know mildly-demented grandad really shouldn't be on the road because he can hardly see at night, but find it hard/impossible to actually do something about it.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    there's a deeper problem here in the US. a large portion of the workforce needs to drive to work. a lot of these people are not very safe drivers, through some combination of incapability, unwillingness, or ignorance. it's hard to strike a good balance between keeping unsafe drivers off the road and not upending people's livelihoods.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      Also the driving test is a joke in the first place so there are a ton of unsafe drivers.
madamelic 6y ago
This is the blue wart in the green sea. The system gives you more power and you'll kill yourself. Similar situations with horse-drawn are not as lethal. As far as I remember, Volvo denied to use horseless carriages years ago, which is the only grown-up and responsible answer to this problem.
- beanders 6y ago
  I do not see how this gives more power to the driver. Decreasing responsibility is not equivalent. Edit: sp

Gravityloss 6y ago

Thanks for linking to good source material. > When the feature requests, you must drive Is there some kind of expected delay from the system requesting driver attention to the driver assuming control? Ie something like 3 seconds?

buran77 6y ago
That's the problem, no such system can guarantee it gives you a minimum amount of time. Some situations appear and develop in less than 3 seconds (think small child jumping in front of your car from between parked cars). You might only have 1s to react and if you are not "plugged in" and fully attentive at that instant you missed the window to react. The more you "disconnect" as a driver, the less likely you are to take over in a split second and this has been proven again and again with humans. A system that works 90% of the time is probably the worst because it's good enough to give you confidence but bad enough that it's a false one. The driver is in the position to buy the advertised "you can disconnect" feature but then only be able to use it under explicit risk of harm to themselves and others. It actually increases the mental load as drivers will try to both "disconnect" (type on the phone, watch a movie) while also "paying attention to the road". Of course both can't be reasonably done at the same time so both experiences are sacrificed. It's like encouraging people to take a taxi after drinking but then expecting them to take over whenever the driver makes a mistake and holding them responsible and accountable for the outcome. You won't enjoy the drink, or the drive. These half-way solutions are great for marketing and for people who are all about the hype. But not only are they the bad compromises, they're also fueled by bad and incomplete data, and by marketing departments wanting to sell more. Almost no self driving outfit provides data on how many times did a human make the slightest correction while the self driving was enabled. Or out of all possible driving conditions, what percentage of them were covered by those self driving miles. My personal philosophy is that cars are either self driving or they're not. Meaning they can either match an average human driver in all conditions they're expected to encounter over the lifetime, or they're just assisting the driver. If it's self driving except when it's not then it's just like a student driver. You wouldn't confuse them with being perfect drivers just because of their perfect safety record, given the supervisor corrects their every mistake.
- drran 6y ago
  > Some situations appear and develop in less than 3 seconds (think small child jumping in front of your car from between parked cars). You might only have 1s to react and if you are not "plugged in" and fully attentive at that instant you missed the window to react. Yeah, humans are weak at this task, which leads to numerous deaths on roads. Can we develop a tech for this? Something, that will watch the road and will assist the driver.
  - mavhc 6y ago
    Humans already kill 3000 people every day while driving
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Politics is emotional, and emotions do not always agree with Utilitarian ethics. Self driving doesn’t just need to be safer, people also need to feel that it is.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        Sorta. Self-driving cars cannot a injure or kill someone in any situation where a human wouldn’t have. I feel this too. I would rather have a greater risk of death but be in control of my fate.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Americans drive more than 3 trillion miles per year.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    That's exactly the sort of task I'd expect an automated vehicle to perform better on. If they can't beat humans at that they're not ready for the public road. Of course hand-off could be for liability purposes, like Car: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm about to plow into a school, this is your problem now" Dave: [looks up briefly from his game of candy crush before dying in a crash]

hkhjghg 6y ago

>YipYipYip... Is this a Sesame Street reference? https://youtu.be/KTc3PsW5ghQ?t=97 https://youtu.be/KTc3PsW5ghQ?t=97

jeffreygoesto 6y ago
YipYipYip =¦-D Com...pjutaaa.

sitkack 6y ago

Volvo is absolutely making the right call here. There is too much irrational exuberance around SDC. The obvious answer is to apply AI to the entire system, not just the car navigating the road * Is the driver paying attention, how much attention should they be paying verses the conditions? * What is the environment like, how should I react, refuse to drive? Go slowly? Honk? We already have self driving vehicles, they are called Mules. Why not make artificial mules instead of artificial pole position. The car should be an active participant, more of a copilot and than a blind automaton. Self driving cars should be shown to have passed a repeatable rigorous adversarial gauntlet before being allowed on the road. And the individual cars should have to be re-certified every 6 months by retaking the test.

dm319 6y ago
As a side note - I think humans should require retaking their test on a regular basis. Maybe every 5 years, and just a short 'refresher' test on the way home from work. It would help find those who simply can't drive safely anymore, and may dissuade others who don't think it's worth going through that process. It would also take a lot of stress and anxiety from the problem of families who know mildly-demented grandad really shouldn't be on the road because he can hardly see at night, but find it hard/impossible to actually do something about it.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  there's a deeper problem here in the US. a large portion of the workforce needs to drive to work. a lot of these people are not very safe drivers, through some combination of incapability, unwillingness, or ignorance. it's hard to strike a good balance between keeping unsafe drivers off the road and not upending people's livelihoods.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Also the driving test is a joke in the first place so there are a ton of unsafe drivers.

madamelic 6y ago

This is the blue wart in the green sea. The system gives you more power and you'll kill yourself. Similar situations with horse-drawn are not as lethal. As far as I remember, Volvo denied to use horseless carriages years ago, which is the only grown-up and responsible answer to this problem.

beanders 6y ago
I do not see how this gives more power to the driver. Decreasing responsibility is not equivalent. Edit: sp