4 ms·
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 kn
by 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 agoYou’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 agoStop 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 agoWho 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.