4 ms·

I have personally written algorithms to select paths for 800kg autonomous vehicles operating around humans and livestock, and that minimise some cost function.

I have personally written algorithms to select paths for 800kg autonomous vehicles operating around humans and livestock, and that minimise some cost function. My cost functions always treated crashes as (effectively) infinite cost. In the limit case where all possible paths had such an infinite cost, the failure mode was to revoke any electrical system that could increase the kinetic energy of the vehicle, apply maximum braking power (and/or any other subsystem that would serve reduce the kinetic energy of the vehicle), disconnect any chemical stores of energy from any activation system (i.e. stall the engine), and then finally - and as a direct consequence of these actions - maintain heading/steering angle. Since we elected to revoke all power systems, we lose the ability to steer. We're attempting to reduce the kinetic energy of the system to zero as rapidly as possible (since we've computed that there are no viable controlled manoeuvres available), and we concluded that the best (and in fact only) option was to maintain trajectory whilst trying to slow down. As a result, I don't think this argument has merit. There is no concept of "who should we crash into" because both are unacceptable, and we'd let physics take over instead.

TheSoftwareGuy 12y ago
Not to be pedantic, but I think you mean to reduce the kinetic energy, not potential. kinetic energy is associated with movement, potential is not.
- Schwolop 12y ago
  Yes, you're totally right and I've edited my phrasing. I was trying to cover the issue of not allowing any more petrol to be turned into kinetic energy, and muddled my own brain... :-)
stickfigure 12y ago
Opting to hold direction is a technical limitation of your system; it's not obvious that disconnecting all power systems is inherently the safest choice - especially as other vehicles react to the situation. Or at the very least, there is a long ethical decision tree of probabilities that must be evaluated before a crash is 100% certain. Do you pick a 48% chance of hitting the Volvo or a 26% chance of hitting the motorcycle? I predict that the ultimate solution will be to pick the path that optimizes for survival of the occupants of the automated vehicle. After all, they paid for it.
- Schwolop 12y ago
  In a manner of speaking what you say is true, because we've classed all forms of crash as being equally bad (infinitely so). And our vehicles were empty of humans, so we deemed their destruction as insignificant compared to harming anything else. I do still think the approach of treating it as an energy minimisation problem was appropriate for our situation, but the differences in the scenarios certainly alter the approach.

TheSoftwareGuy 12y ago

Not to be pedantic, but I think you mean to reduce the kinetic energy, not potential. kinetic energy is associated with movement, potential is not.

Schwolop 12y ago
Yes, you're totally right and I've edited my phrasing. I was trying to cover the issue of not allowing any more petrol to be turned into kinetic energy, and muddled my own brain... :-)

stickfigure 12y ago

Opting to hold direction is a technical limitation of your system; it's not obvious that disconnecting all power systems is inherently the safest choice - especially as other vehicles react to the situation. Or at the very least, there is a long ethical decision tree of probabilities that must be evaluated before a crash is 100% certain. Do you pick a 48% chance of hitting the Volvo or a 26% chance of hitting the motorcycle? I predict that the ultimate solution will be to pick the path that optimizes for survival of the occupants of the automated vehicle. After all, they paid for it.

Schwolop 12y ago
In a manner of speaking what you say is true, because we've classed all forms of crash as being equally bad (infinitely so). And our vehicles were empty of humans, so we deemed their destruction as insignificant compared to harming anything else. I do still think the approach of treating it as an energy minimisation problem was appropriate for our situation, but the differences in the scenarios certainly alter the approach.