4 ms·

Self-driving cars should be far better at recognizing a human in most orientations/poses/outfits, regardless of the car's angle, or weather. It doesn't get dist

by gibolt 4y ago

Self-driving cars should be far better at recognizing a human in most orientations/poses/outfits, regardless of the car's angle, or weather. It doesn't get distracted, can see 360 around the vehicle, has faster reaction, and is specifically timid around pedestrians. Even the best drivers could easily hit someone based on conditions. There have been suggestions that pedestrians could make cities interesting, since a place like New York would have every pedestrian no longer afraid to just walk into traffic. The cars will just wait until a fully clear moment that may never come

_carbyau_ 4y ago
It's this adversarial environment that I fear is the complication. As you say, if you know the cars will stop and let you go, this power will corrupt. Extend this thinking to bicyclists, skateboarders, delivery riders, motorcyclists, car enthusiasts driving themselves - all able to simply cut off a self driving car knowing it will give way. But there is more adversarial out there. AI input hacking to get known responses. Cars disabled because of gang tagging on sensors. Car enthusiasts or privacy enthusiasts (privacy shouldn't require enthusiasm but here we are...) updating car firmware/software. People with full physical access! And we haven't touched on the ethical stuff which is a world of discussion in itself. Self driving cars by evolution in current societal rules etc will take a LONG time.
- tpm 4y ago
  > if you know the cars will stop and let you go, this power will corrupt. > Extend this thinking to ... - all able to simply cut off a self driving car knowing it will give way. But this is already the case; if I jump into slow moving traffic in a (western) city centre the cars will let me through, possibly even without honking. The only things to fear are distracted drivers (which is the same with the AI, because I can't know whether the AI sees me) and the occasional madman, but those are rare. What's more interesting as you point out are situations where other drivers will take advantage of the AI's adherence to rules and safety. That's going to be especially fun in cities like Napoli, where things like driving through red signal are completely normal. It's probably not going to work there at all in its current state.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  >As you say, if you know the cars will stop and let you go, this power will corrupt. Would stepping out in front of a car be illegal?
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Which, in the abstract, is an interesting theoretical question, but California recently decided to basically legalize jaywalking. https://laist.com/news/transportation/understanding-new-california-jaywalking-law https://laist.com/news/transportation/understanding-new-cali...
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    That's the thing isn't it. If "person walks in front of car" event is rare, then the automatic car stop saving a life or minimising injury is nice. Saved a person from a bad day for a minor inconvenience for the car people. If a NY city worth of people do it without regard, then cars will be gridlocked. My guess is: - Assuming self driving cars that that stop for pedestrians are common - then laws against deliberately walking in front will exist - to judge the dispute of "deliberate" there will be more cameras, because why wouldn't there be...
- xapata 4y ago
  It's long past time that we turn the streets back over to pedestrians. Communities are much more enjoyable when car-free.
stephen_g 4y ago
Potentially, but sometimes I think we do forget how surprisingly good humans can be at this, and how hard it can be for computer detection systems to work well enough without also having a high number of false-positives where it will slam on the brakes for something it didn’t need to stop for (and in doing so, potentially even causing an accident!)
eru 4y ago
> [...], since a place like New York would have every pedestrian no longer afraid to just walk into traffic. London already has near suicidal pedestrians. And I say that with respect: it's the opposite of the usual tragedy of the commons. Every pedestrian in central London who just crosses the street without looking places themselves in appreciable danger, but contributes a tiny bit to training London drivers to be extra careful. (Going off on a tangent: tipping is an interesting opposite. If everyone in the US stopped tipping tomorrow, economic equilibrium would shift so that service sector people would have comparatively higher nominal wages and roughly the same overall income. That's how it is in Japan or Australia or Singapore (or the US before the 20th century), where tipping is either less common or severely frowned upon. Because eg prospective waitstaff in the US expect to be tipped, they accept lower wages. Similarly, a single patron not tipping in the US gets a lot of social awkwardness without shifting the equilibrium much. A single waiter in the US not accepting tips loses out on income and also gets social awkwardness, also without shifting the equilibrium much.)

by gibolt 4y ago

_carbyau_ 4y ago

It's this adversarial environment that I fear is the complication. As you say, if you know the cars will stop and let you go, this power will corrupt. Extend this thinking to bicyclists, skateboarders, delivery riders, motorcyclists, car enthusiasts driving themselves - all able to simply cut off a self driving car knowing it will give way. But there is more adversarial out there. AI input hacking to get known responses. Cars disabled because of gang tagging on sensors. Car enthusiasts or privacy enthusiasts (privacy shouldn't require enthusiasm but here we are...) updating car firmware/software. People with full physical access! And we haven't touched on the ethical stuff which is a world of discussion in itself. Self driving cars by evolution in current societal rules etc will take a LONG time.

tpm 4y ago
> if you know the cars will stop and let you go, this power will corrupt. > Extend this thinking to ... - all able to simply cut off a self driving car knowing it will give way. But this is already the case; if I jump into slow moving traffic in a (western) city centre the cars will let me through, possibly even without honking. The only things to fear are distracted drivers (which is the same with the AI, because I can't know whether the AI sees me) and the occasional madman, but those are rare. What's more interesting as you point out are situations where other drivers will take advantage of the AI's adherence to rules and safety. That's going to be especially fun in cities like Napoli, where things like driving through red signal are completely normal. It's probably not going to work there at all in its current state.
Thorrez 4y ago
>As you say, if you know the cars will stop and let you go, this power will corrupt. Would stepping out in front of a car be illegal?
- fragmede 4y ago
  Which, in the abstract, is an interesting theoretical question, but California recently decided to basically legalize jaywalking. https://laist.com/news/transportation/understanding-new-california-jaywalking-law https://laist.com/news/transportation/understanding-new-cali...
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  That's the thing isn't it. If "person walks in front of car" event is rare, then the automatic car stop saving a life or minimising injury is nice. Saved a person from a bad day for a minor inconvenience for the car people. If a NY city worth of people do it without regard, then cars will be gridlocked. My guess is: - Assuming self driving cars that that stop for pedestrians are common - then laws against deliberately walking in front will exist - to judge the dispute of "deliberate" there will be more cameras, because why wouldn't there be...
xapata 4y ago
It's long past time that we turn the streets back over to pedestrians. Communities are much more enjoyable when car-free.

stephen_g 4y ago

Potentially, but sometimes I think we do forget how surprisingly good humans can be at this, and how hard it can be for computer detection systems to work well enough without also having a high number of false-positives where it will slam on the brakes for something it didn’t need to stop for (and in doing so, potentially even causing an accident!)

eru 4y ago

> [...], since a place like New York would have every pedestrian no longer afraid to just walk into traffic. London already has near suicidal pedestrians. And I say that with respect: it's the opposite of the usual tragedy of the commons. Every pedestrian in central London who just crosses the street without looking places themselves in appreciable danger, but contributes a tiny bit to training London drivers to be extra careful. (Going off on a tangent: tipping is an interesting opposite. If everyone in the US stopped tipping tomorrow, economic equilibrium would shift so that service sector people would have comparatively higher nominal wages and roughly the same overall income. That's how it is in Japan or Australia or Singapore (or the US before the 20th century), where tipping is either less common or severely frowned upon. Because eg prospective waitstaff in the US expect to be tipped, they accept lower wages. Similarly, a single patron not tipping in the US gets a lot of social awkwardness without shifting the equilibrium much. A single waiter in the US not accepting tips loses out on income and also gets social awkwardness, also without shifting the equilibrium much.)