5 ms·
I would imagine the car has ways of identifying things that are specific hazards, such as a gas pump. Fruit stand is probably categorized as "other." "the prob
by robbrown451 4y ago
I would imagine the car has ways of identifying things that are specific hazards, such as a gas pump. Fruit stand is probably categorized as "other."
"the problem is in having the correct ontology to even get to the "prioritization" stage."
That part isn't done by the program, it is done by whoever enters the prioritization numbers. That is, someone, possibly a committee, can dial up the "avoid gas pumps" weighting relative to the "avoid baby stroller" weighting if they are concerned that cars might swerve so widely to avoid coming near a stroller than they are risking hitting a different hazard. Or they can dial up the weight of grocery carts relative to dogs, since children might be in a grocery cart. Etc.
Those are humans, who can do whatever ontological analysis they need when deciding on the the settings. The car doesn't need to access any of that, it just needs a general look up table that can help make optimal decisions based on the human-entered value system.
- dogecoinbase 4y agoSure, we'll just write down all the things there are in the world in order of how bad it is for a car to hit them.
- omgwtfbyobbq 4y agoWe're really lucky we never see more than 1 thing at a time on the road.
- robbrown451 4y agoYou don't think self driving cars categorize and prioritize things?
- dane-pgp 4y agoI mean, you're right; someone making that list might not think to include "centaur", and maybe one Halloween a child is dressed up as one, and the computer vision system interprets the "centaur" as a horse instead of a child, and it makes the wrong decision, but how many centaur-related accidents do you think self-driving cars are going to be involved in each year? It's completely feasible to imagine writing a list of the top, say, 100 things in the world that a car needs to make morally-significant decisions about, and then deal with every other accident or near-miss after the fact. Interactions with unrecognised objects should be rare enough to be a rounding error when comparing accident rates between autonomous and human-driven miles.
- true_religion 4y agoEven if a automated vehicles intelligence misinterpreted a human child to be a horse child, then it should only hit it in the unavoidable circumstance of trying to preserve a human life. If it’s choosing between hitting a pole and hitting a pony, it should always hit the pole so long as no one is injured. The real problem is that occasionally these cars today mistake roads for oceans, walls for roads, and people for inanimate poles.