6 ms·

> while a human might react to the collision at -2.9s and slow down or stop, "scene understanding" as a human might do it is non-existent in most or perhaps all

by zelos 3y ago

> while a human might react to the collision at -2.9s and slow down or stop, "scene understanding" as a human might do it is non-existent in most or perhaps all AVs... That's a good point. If you see a pedestrian hit by a car anywhere near your car, you stop, right? If you see a pedestrian walk out into the road against the lights you at least slow down and/or cover the brake pedal because who knows what they're going to do?

ddalex 3y ago
I think this is a critical part of cracking self-driving cars - "scene understanding", or more accurately, identification AND MODELLING of all traffic participants. A tiger chasing a deer will identify and model what the deer will do, what the terrain is, and take appropriate decisions on how to best pursue; a good driver will do the same - e.g. understanding that a round object bouncing in the street of a residential neighborhood is a ball, and where a ball comes, a child will follow. I also think that this feedback loop of "Model the world, take action, observe, update model" is a key component of consciousness (whereas we model ourselves!) and key to AGI. I would not be surprised that AGI comes from a self-driving car development model.
- nunez 3y ago
  I'm guessing this is one of the things that Tesla's Dojo supercomputer combined with the billions of miles collected from their fleet is trying to solve
  - ddalex 3y ago
    I'm guessing not; what NNs do is pattern matching. Basically they try to "remember" what should be done at in a given situation, but does not have continuous representation and modelling of other objects; not even "object permanence" - when a car disappears from their world, it's gone.
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      Tesla's FSD does actually have a degree of object permanence. It would be a lot of worse if it didn't.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Maybe it's not reliable enough as-is, but seems to me that this "something odd is going on, better slow down or stop" requirement might be entirely solvable with anomaly detection. When the data is not as it normally is, take extra care. It's not that complicated and AGI is hardly required.
  - semiquaver 3y ago
    The problem is “something odd is going on” requires precisely the “scene understanding” that is currently absent from all AVs. The reality is that nearly all sensory input is novel in some way and a large part of the work the human brain does is quietly filtering out a massive amount of irrelevant input in a way that is computationally infeasible with current technology.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  OTOH, this is not what people do in emergency situation; the modelling loop is just too slow. In emergencies people need to rely on reactions which are built through training and practice. A good modeller can often avoid the emergency situation (i.e. your ball example), but once in an emergency situation it's a reaction situation.
  - mnw21cam 3y ago
    The difficult part of the UK driving test is doing exactly that modelling loop. I agree with you. It's not about responding to an emergency - yes the loop would be too slow for that. It's about foreseeing the emergency before it happens. Looking ahead further down the road for things that could turn into hazards that should be prepared for ahead of time. It's credited with reducing the accident rate, though I'm not entirely sure how they worked that out.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      For those outside the UK, this is called the Hazard Perception Test https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test
  - sottol 3y ago
    Imo our reflexes differ based on context. But I'm not sure if it's the reflexive system chosing one of N options that are always available or the planner that "activates" just a few options based on the current context.
sparsely 3y ago
Indeed, and you'd hope that AVs would do this. Notably the car which caused the initial incident didn't do this, they hit the pedestrian then drove off!
- zelos 3y ago
  Yeah, it's not like the humans in this story were showing their best side, but AVs have to tak that kind of stupidity into account I think. Like the fact that a cyclist on the other side of the road is a hazard to you, not because of the cyclist, but because an impatient driver stuck behind them is likely to pull out suddenly round the cyclist, forcing you to brake.
curiousgal 3y ago
It's all non-existent in all posters on r/IdiotsInCars.
tempaway12751 3y ago
I believe Tesla Autopilot tries to do "scene understanding" and model what is happening but not sure how successful it is
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 3y ago
Let me introduce you to: https://www.youtube.com/@DashcamLessons https://www.youtube.com/@DashcamLessons You might stop, yes. But many humans don't. That channel is mild and tends to be relatively work-safe; it doesn't take much searching youtube to find the rest. It's hard to avoid thinking that maybe humans should never be allowed to drive automobiles.
- Vecr 3y ago
  Properly trained, well rested, and sober humans are very, very good. If you can create an AV with a single open-source software version, entirely fixed with zero changes during the whole duration, and get it to drive 200 million miles, I'll reconsider.
  - stickfigure 3y ago
    "Very good humans are very good"? I'm not sure that's actually true, but even if I posit it... "properly trained, well rested, and sober" does not actually describe humanity. You can revel in your moral superiority to the average driver, or you can make the roads safer. AVs do not need to be better than the best human drivers. AVs need to be better than the average human driver. The average human driver is shit.

by zelos 3y ago

ddalex 3y ago

I think this is a critical part of cracking self-driving cars - "scene understanding", or more accurately, identification AND MODELLING of all traffic participants. A tiger chasing a deer will identify and model what the deer will do, what the terrain is, and take appropriate decisions on how to best pursue; a good driver will do the same - e.g. understanding that a round object bouncing in the street of a residential neighborhood is a ball, and where a ball comes, a child will follow. I also think that this feedback loop of "Model the world, take action, observe, update model" is a key component of consciousness (whereas we model ourselves!) and key to AGI. I would not be surprised that AGI comes from a self-driving car development model.

nunez 3y ago
I'm guessing this is one of the things that Tesla's Dojo supercomputer combined with the billions of miles collected from their fleet is trying to solve
- ddalex 3y ago
  I'm guessing not; what NNs do is pattern matching. Basically they try to "remember" what should be done at in a given situation, but does not have continuous representation and modelling of other objects; not even "object permanence" - when a car disappears from their world, it's gone.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Tesla's FSD does actually have a degree of object permanence. It would be a lot of worse if it didn't.
moffkalast 3y ago
Maybe it's not reliable enough as-is, but seems to me that this "something odd is going on, better slow down or stop" requirement might be entirely solvable with anomaly detection. When the data is not as it normally is, take extra care. It's not that complicated and AGI is hardly required.
- semiquaver 3y ago
  The problem is “something odd is going on” requires precisely the “scene understanding” that is currently absent from all AVs. The reality is that nearly all sensory input is novel in some way and a large part of the work the human brain does is quietly filtering out a massive amount of irrelevant input in a way that is computationally infeasible with current technology.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
OTOH, this is not what people do in emergency situation; the modelling loop is just too slow. In emergencies people need to rely on reactions which are built through training and practice. A good modeller can often avoid the emergency situation (i.e. your ball example), but once in an emergency situation it's a reaction situation.
- mnw21cam 3y ago
  The difficult part of the UK driving test is doing exactly that modelling loop. I agree with you. It's not about responding to an emergency - yes the loop would be too slow for that. It's about foreseeing the emergency before it happens. Looking ahead further down the road for things that could turn into hazards that should be prepared for ahead of time. It's credited with reducing the accident rate, though I'm not entirely sure how they worked that out.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    For those outside the UK, this is called the Hazard Perception Test https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test
- sottol 3y ago
  Imo our reflexes differ based on context. But I'm not sure if it's the reflexive system chosing one of N options that are always available or the planner that "activates" just a few options based on the current context.

sparsely 3y ago

Indeed, and you'd hope that AVs would do this. Notably the car which caused the initial incident didn't do this, they hit the pedestrian then drove off!

zelos 3y ago
Yeah, it's not like the humans in this story were showing their best side, but AVs have to tak that kind of stupidity into account I think. Like the fact that a cyclist on the other side of the road is a hazard to you, not because of the cyclist, but because an impatient driver stuck behind them is likely to pull out suddenly round the cyclist, forcing you to brake.

curiousgal 3y ago

It's all non-existent in all posters on r/IdiotsInCars.

tempaway12751 3y ago

I believe Tesla Autopilot tries to do "scene understanding" and model what is happening but not sure how successful it is

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

stickfigure 3y ago

Let me introduce you to: https://www.youtube.com/@DashcamLessons https://www.youtube.com/@DashcamLessons You might stop, yes. But many humans don't. That channel is mild and tends to be relatively work-safe; it doesn't take much searching youtube to find the rest. It's hard to avoid thinking that maybe humans should never be allowed to drive automobiles.

Vecr 3y ago
Properly trained, well rested, and sober humans are very, very good. If you can create an AV with a single open-source software version, entirely fixed with zero changes during the whole duration, and get it to drive 200 million miles, I'll reconsider.
- stickfigure 3y ago
  "Very good humans are very good"? I'm not sure that's actually true, but even if I posit it... "properly trained, well rested, and sober" does not actually describe humanity. You can revel in your moral superiority to the average driver, or you can make the roads safer. AVs do not need to be better than the best human drivers. AVs need to be better than the average human driver. The average human driver is shit.