4 ms·

I do not rely on just my eyes when driving and if I did I'd have been in at least one accident. I also rely on hearing and feel (vibrations, difficulty steering

I do not rely on just my eyes when driving and if I did I'd have been in at least one accident. I also rely on hearing and feel (vibrations, difficulty steering, car movement, etc.). Studies support this by indicating those who have hearing difficulties are more likely to get into accidents. I also rely on an organic computer far more powerful than anything you can shove into a car with modern technology and a pair of cameras with better dynamic range than anything on the market. Plus the ability to dynamically reposition these sensors by a couple feet. Once you can shove a human brain's worth of compute and memory into a car, along with an amazingly good set of 360 coverage stereo cameras, great stereo microphones, and multi accelerometers we can start talking about "LIDAR not mattering because the car can do what a human does and a human doesn't have LIDAR." Of course then you've got 20+ sensors that may disagree with each other anyways so LIDAR is probably going to mean fewer sensors overall.

williamcotton 3y ago
What I'm pointing out is that this is not merely an issue of sensors and that focusing on sensory input is not the way to solve the problems of embodied decision making. The focus should be on creating a system that can make these kinds of embodied decisions. Read my other comment in this thread related to androids.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  Nothing says the only way to have a car drive as safely as an optimal human requires a human analogue. You're making a massive strong claim without anything to back it up. For example, humans can drive cars in video games fairly well from a third person perspective which clearly is not the same as sitting in a car.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    Are you offering up any concrete path towards dealing with the kinds of scenarios that I am presenting? And what does a human controlling a virtual car have to do with a machine controlling an actual car? The human can easily control the virtual car in the same manner as a real car precisely because of their embodied knowledge of cars, roads, and other parts of our experienced reality!
    - marcinzm 3y ago
      As ChatGPT has shown you can get very close to human without actually being anything remotely human. >Are you offering up any concrete path towards dealing with the kinds of scenarios that I am presenting? They don't matter 99.9999% of the time and the rest of the time it's actually better to avoid the obstacle every single time. Kids play in cardboard boxes and die because people's "embodied" view doesn't account for that. Plastic bags wind around the wheel and break the car because people's "embodied" view doesn't see the danger of a plastic bag. Etc, etc. People are overall atrocious unsafe drivers and I'd be surprised if even existing driving system aren't superior to humans in terms of accidents. A real issue is that the data from existing sensors is less than the data a human gets from our sensors which will leave edge cases that software cannot solve (ie: many Tesla autopilot accidents seem to be this category).
      - williamcotton 3y ago
        As I said in another comment, many years ago I was on I-95 in heavy, fast moving traffic and I saw a box flutter off the back of a truck and I decided to just let it bounce off my windshield. That was the right decision to make.
        codeka 3y ago
        It was the right decision not because it was made of cardboard, but because it "fluttered". If it had been full of bowling balls and just thunked to the ground, it would not have been the right decision to just drive over it.
        williamcotton 3y ago
        Yes, that is exactly my point, which is why I added that important detail! I saw that it behaved in a way that made it clear that it was better if I let the box hit my car than to slam on the brakes or steer out of the way. I am not talking about any specific case. The difficulty is precisely in creating an autonomous system that is capable of making such embodied decisions. I learned to recognize how a lightweight object behaves with a lifetime of experience. The type of sensory input does not matter for this and if we are trying to train a system that is capable of this kind of deeper modeling of the world it is traveling through then the focus needs to be on building and training of such a system. Fluttering boxes is just one of an infinite number of such embodied decisions I am able to make as a human living on the planet earth!
  - judge2020 3y ago
    > the only way to have a car drive as safely as an optimal human requires a human analogue. To be fair, they said: > not the way to solve the problems of embodied decision making Having more sensors might make things easier. But, after maybe an hour of watching Tesla FSD Beta videos, you'll find that the deficiency is in the decision-making that goes into actually driving like a human, predicting what other road users are going to do, and following human traffic patterns, not object detection.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

williamcotton 3y ago

What I'm pointing out is that this is not merely an issue of sensors and that focusing on sensory input is not the way to solve the problems of embodied decision making. The focus should be on creating a system that can make these kinds of embodied decisions. Read my other comment in this thread related to androids.

marcinzm 3y ago
Nothing says the only way to have a car drive as safely as an optimal human requires a human analogue. You're making a massive strong claim without anything to back it up. For example, humans can drive cars in video games fairly well from a third person perspective which clearly is not the same as sitting in a car.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Are you offering up any concrete path towards dealing with the kinds of scenarios that I am presenting? And what does a human controlling a virtual car have to do with a machine controlling an actual car? The human can easily control the virtual car in the same manner as a real car precisely because of their embodied knowledge of cars, roads, and other parts of our experienced reality!
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    As ChatGPT has shown you can get very close to human without actually being anything remotely human. >Are you offering up any concrete path towards dealing with the kinds of scenarios that I am presenting? They don't matter 99.9999% of the time and the rest of the time it's actually better to avoid the obstacle every single time. Kids play in cardboard boxes and die because people's "embodied" view doesn't account for that. Plastic bags wind around the wheel and break the car because people's "embodied" view doesn't see the danger of a plastic bag. Etc, etc. People are overall atrocious unsafe drivers and I'd be surprised if even existing driving system aren't superior to humans in terms of accidents. A real issue is that the data from existing sensors is less than the data a human gets from our sensors which will leave edge cases that software cannot solve (ie: many Tesla autopilot accidents seem to be this category).
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      As I said in another comment, many years ago I was on I-95 in heavy, fast moving traffic and I saw a box flutter off the back of a truck and I decided to just let it bounce off my windshield. That was the right decision to make.
      - codeka 3y ago
        It was the right decision not because it was made of cardboard, but because it "fluttered". If it had been full of bowling balls and just thunked to the ground, it would not have been the right decision to just drive over it.
        williamcotton 3y ago
        Yes, that is exactly my point, which is why I added that important detail! I saw that it behaved in a way that made it clear that it was better if I let the box hit my car than to slam on the brakes or steer out of the way. I am not talking about any specific case. The difficulty is precisely in creating an autonomous system that is capable of making such embodied decisions. I learned to recognize how a lightweight object behaves with a lifetime of experience. The type of sensory input does not matter for this and if we are trying to train a system that is capable of this kind of deeper modeling of the world it is traveling through then the focus needs to be on building and training of such a system. Fluttering boxes is just one of an infinite number of such embodied decisions I am able to make as a human living on the planet earth!
- judge2020 3y ago
  > the only way to have a car drive as safely as an optimal human requires a human analogue. To be fair, they said: > not the way to solve the problems of embodied decision making Having more sensors might make things easier. But, after maybe an hour of watching Tesla FSD Beta videos, you'll find that the deficiency is in the decision-making that goes into actually driving like a human, predicting what other road users are going to do, and following human traffic patterns, not object detection.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]