5 ms·
> If Radar says one thing and Vision says another over and over who do you trust? Neither? If you don't have a tiebreaker you disengage and let the human decid
by tw04 5y ago
> If Radar says one thing and Vision says another over and over who do you trust?
Neither? If you don't have a tiebreaker you disengage and let the human decide. We solved this problem in systems long ago. You either fail open or fail closed depending on the system. In this case it seems like you'd always fail to the safest option which is alert the human.
- soco 5y agoSo basically you're driving full speed against an obstacle and you get the commands handed out. It sounds like a slapstick comedy where the pilot says "lol bye you're on your own" and jumps out the plane door.
- kfarr 5y agoI think that is still desirable behavior when compared to a slapstick comedy where the pilot says "don't worry bruh I got this" and then proceeds to plow directly into a mountain side
- soco 5y agoI get your point and I agree to it. For the nitpicking, I'd just not use the word "desirable" when the slapstick situation would be rather "less bad"... because "desirable" means a positive outcome while neither one is anything positive.
- drcongo 5y agoI learned on HN long ago that planes usually have three sensors for critical systems so that if one is disagreeing but the other two agree, you still have a reasonable degree of certainty. Having a single sensor that seems to insist on steering toward obstacles doesn't seem great to me.