3 ms·

I think the important distinction is that humans aren’t confused by the stickers that confuse “self-driving” technology. The stickers in the article, for exampl

I think the important distinction is that humans aren’t confused by the stickers that confuse “self-driving” technology. The stickers in the article, for example, are unlikely to confuse a human.

pards 4y ago
Although the article didn't say which stickers were used - they __implied__ that the signs shown fooled the vehicles but they didn't state it explicitly. Who knows, maybe they stuck 65 mile/hour speed limit sign over a stop sign.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  You’re right; I think these are the actual ones[1]. My intuition is that a human is equally unlikely to be fooled by these stop sign modifications, although the curve warning sign might fool someone at night. [1]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15340148/researchers-find-a-malicious-way-to-meddle-with-autonomous-cars/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15340148/researchers-find...
  - rimliu 4y ago
    Stop sign has a unique shape for the reason. Humans would recognise it by shape only – and that's the reason for it being unique. Even if it is covered in snow, you know that's it is the STOP sign. Similarly, the bottom-up triangle can only mean "yield".
- onion2k 4y ago
  Who knows, maybe they stuck 65 mile/hour speed limit sign over a stop sign. That wouldn't fool a person. People use a massive amount of contextual data, historical knowledge, and common sense to interpret the world around them. A random out-of-place sign like a 65mph marker at a junction where a stop sign might be isn't enough to trick someone. Self-driving cars probably won't ever be as good as a person at this. That's fine because we're able to accept a small risk if the reward is enough of a benefit. Law-makers should be considering it and making "tampering with a road sign" a much more serious explicit crime that's worse than just basic vandelism though.
themitigating 4y ago
That increases the danger of self driving cars over people but there are other situations where self driving is safer. When discussing this I don't hear the positives
- dylan604 4y ago
  This is such a non-starter type of argument. This isn't kindergarten or a 1on1 meeting where you wrap the negative comments in positive comments. This is a harsh review of a piece of tech being touted as the next coming yet has such horrible faults that it can't be anything but a hobby project at best. This has the ability to kill people because of these faults, so telling bobbyDriverlessCar that he did pretty good, but has one area that needs improvement because you don't want to destroy bobbyDriverlessCar's over inflated ego is just a dumb way to think of this.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    In kindergarten you don't weigh the positives and negatives

pards 4y ago

Although the article didn't say which stickers were used - they __implied__ that the signs shown fooled the vehicles but they didn't state it explicitly. Who knows, maybe they stuck 65 mile/hour speed limit sign over a stop sign.

woodruffw 4y ago
You’re right; I think these are the actual ones[1]. My intuition is that a human is equally unlikely to be fooled by these stop sign modifications, although the curve warning sign might fool someone at night. [1]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15340148/researchers-find-a-malicious-way-to-meddle-with-autonomous-cars/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15340148/researchers-find...
- rimliu 4y ago
  Stop sign has a unique shape for the reason. Humans would recognise it by shape only – and that's the reason for it being unique. Even if it is covered in snow, you know that's it is the STOP sign. Similarly, the bottom-up triangle can only mean "yield".
onion2k 4y ago
Who knows, maybe they stuck 65 mile/hour speed limit sign over a stop sign. That wouldn't fool a person. People use a massive amount of contextual data, historical knowledge, and common sense to interpret the world around them. A random out-of-place sign like a 65mph marker at a junction where a stop sign might be isn't enough to trick someone. Self-driving cars probably won't ever be as good as a person at this. That's fine because we're able to accept a small risk if the reward is enough of a benefit. Law-makers should be considering it and making "tampering with a road sign" a much more serious explicit crime that's worse than just basic vandelism though.

themitigating 4y ago

That increases the danger of self driving cars over people but there are other situations where self driving is safer. When discussing this I don't hear the positives

dylan604 4y ago
This is such a non-starter type of argument. This isn't kindergarten or a 1on1 meeting where you wrap the negative comments in positive comments. This is a harsh review of a piece of tech being touted as the next coming yet has such horrible faults that it can't be anything but a hobby project at best. This has the ability to kill people because of these faults, so telling bobbyDriverlessCar that he did pretty good, but has one area that needs improvement because you don't want to destroy bobbyDriverlessCar's over inflated ego is just a dumb way to think of this.
- themitigating 4y ago
  In kindergarten you don't weigh the positives and negatives