5 ms·

This is the problem with self driving cars. A human has the awareness to pull over when it's appropriate and also is able to recognize they just ran over somebo

This is the problem with self driving cars. A human has the awareness to pull over when it's appropriate and also is able to recognize they just ran over somebody and it's best to stop completely. But AVs seem to just have a dumb if/else statement to control this behavior (yes, I know it is actually more complex than that, I work in this space. But that is how they behave). Driving is infinitely complex. It's becoming increasingly clear that the current approach to AVs not up to the challenge.

pj_mukh 3y ago
A humans awareness is not constant. It waxes and wanes, even more so with cellphones in hand. The status quo is indefensible so setting up moving unknowable goal posts for something to replace them doesn’t make sense to me. This particular problem can be easily solved by cameras in the under carriage to make sure there aren’t humans shoved in there by other bad drivers. I wouldn’t mind making that a requirement across the board and moving on to the next challenge the unpredictability of human drivers throws at a repeatable robotic system. There is no evidence that there is a magical different approach that will work better.
- patrick451 3y ago
  > A humans awareness is not constant. It waxes and wanes, even more so with cellphones in hand. And even with supposedly* perfectly consistent awareness, the automation still failed catastrophically. > The status quo is indefensible so setting up moving unknowable goal posts for something to replace them doesn’t make sense to me. AVs are not better than the status quo, making them even less defensible. A human would not have drug that poor women for 20 feet because it was compelled to execute a pull-over maneuver. Even an OCD psychopath knows better. * None of these things run actual realtime operating systems with fixed, predictable deadlines. Compute requirements can vary wildly depending on the circumstance. When compute spikes, consistency drops. A robot can only way approximate constant awareness by massively undersubcribing the compute budget.
  - pj_mukh 3y ago
    "AVs are not better than the status quo" We don't have the data to claim this, this confidently, and the only way to get the data is let the experiment keep running in the real world (only place that matters). There will obviously with holes in the awareness (literal missing cameras under the car) that's what the testing is for. If someone says they can sit in a room, in a simulation environment and come up with all potential crazy things humans can do around autonomous cars, they are lying to you. To me, its either this, or we pull all human drivers off the road, restructure our cities and put em on public transit (wholly support this). I re-iterate: The status quo is unacceptable and indefensible. The human driver who actually caused the accident has still not been held to account (and probably never will be). P.S: I accept your point about the system being non-realtime. Though I think there are some critical safety systems (LIDAR/RADAR cutoffs etc.) that might have a real-time response?
    - oldgradstudent 3y ago
      > We don't have the data to claim this, this confidently, and the only way to get the data is let the experiment keep running in the real world (only place that matters). How about we start with something simpler: have Waymo, Cruise and their likes produce a rigorous safety case[1] arguing why their vehicles are safe. Once the safety case is in the open, we can also evaluate how well their system satisfy the claims in the safety case, and if the assumption do not hold, we can stop the experiment. They are experimenting on humans. The usual requirement is informed consent. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_case
      - pj_mukh 3y ago
        This is just..more paperwork, but sure, highly unlikely that these companies don't have this report built internally already. And like I said, there will be scenarios not covered by it, because we simply don't know what they are and can't think it up. But if we're doing this, lets also make human Drivers do this, and for real parity, make sure all human drivers are kitted out with all the same cameras and logging systems we ask of from autonomous car companies, auto submitted to the DMV. Then analyze all the reports on an annual basis to see if the human and/or autonomous agent should be allowed to continue to operate on the road. I think people forget that driving is not a right but a privilege, I agree that both humans and autonomous agents should earn this privilege. P.S: If the claim is that a one-time DMV driving test is enough, then that should be enough for autonomous cars as well (I'm not making that claim)

pj_mukh 3y ago

A humans awareness is not constant. It waxes and wanes, even more so with cellphones in hand. The status quo is indefensible so setting up moving unknowable goal posts for something to replace them doesn’t make sense to me. This particular problem can be easily solved by cameras in the under carriage to make sure there aren’t humans shoved in there by other bad drivers. I wouldn’t mind making that a requirement across the board and moving on to the next challenge the unpredictability of human drivers throws at a repeatable robotic system. There is no evidence that there is a magical different approach that will work better.

patrick451 3y ago
> A humans awareness is not constant. It waxes and wanes, even more so with cellphones in hand. And even with supposedly* perfectly consistent awareness, the automation still failed catastrophically. > The status quo is indefensible so setting up moving unknowable goal posts for something to replace them doesn’t make sense to me. AVs are not better than the status quo, making them even less defensible. A human would not have drug that poor women for 20 feet because it was compelled to execute a pull-over maneuver. Even an OCD psychopath knows better. * None of these things run actual realtime operating systems with fixed, predictable deadlines. Compute requirements can vary wildly depending on the circumstance. When compute spikes, consistency drops. A robot can only way approximate constant awareness by massively undersubcribing the compute budget.
- pj_mukh 3y ago
  "AVs are not better than the status quo" We don't have the data to claim this, this confidently, and the only way to get the data is let the experiment keep running in the real world (only place that matters). There will obviously with holes in the awareness (literal missing cameras under the car) that's what the testing is for. If someone says they can sit in a room, in a simulation environment and come up with all potential crazy things humans can do around autonomous cars, they are lying to you. To me, its either this, or we pull all human drivers off the road, restructure our cities and put em on public transit (wholly support this). I re-iterate: The status quo is unacceptable and indefensible. The human driver who actually caused the accident has still not been held to account (and probably never will be). P.S: I accept your point about the system being non-realtime. Though I think there are some critical safety systems (LIDAR/RADAR cutoffs etc.) that might have a real-time response?
  - oldgradstudent 3y ago
    > We don't have the data to claim this, this confidently, and the only way to get the data is let the experiment keep running in the real world (only place that matters). How about we start with something simpler: have Waymo, Cruise and their likes produce a rigorous safety case[1] arguing why their vehicles are safe. Once the safety case is in the open, we can also evaluate how well their system satisfy the claims in the safety case, and if the assumption do not hold, we can stop the experiment. They are experimenting on humans. The usual requirement is informed consent. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_case
    - pj_mukh 3y ago
      This is just..more paperwork, but sure, highly unlikely that these companies don't have this report built internally already. And like I said, there will be scenarios not covered by it, because we simply don't know what they are and can't think it up. But if we're doing this, lets also make human Drivers do this, and for real parity, make sure all human drivers are kitted out with all the same cameras and logging systems we ask of from autonomous car companies, auto submitted to the DMV. Then analyze all the reports on an annual basis to see if the human and/or autonomous agent should be allowed to continue to operate on the road. I think people forget that driving is not a right but a privilege, I agree that both humans and autonomous agents should earn this privilege. P.S: If the claim is that a one-time DMV driving test is enough, then that should be enough for autonomous cars as well (I'm not making that claim)