4 ms·

Of course it's obvious to the researchers developing the cars. That doesn't make it simple or easy to solve, something as basic and simple as the halting proble

Of course it's obvious to the researchers developing the cars. That doesn't make it simple or easy to solve, something as basic and simple as the halting problem cannot be solved. Data does not help you much in those 0.001% of situations where there is no data or too small a dataset to conclude anything. An AI can only act according to it's training. If we for a moment assume that it comes from the collective experience of all self driving cars, it's only as good as it's sensors allow it to be. They are simply not there yet. Could an modern AI provide autonoumous commute on the highway today - sure. Can it be trusted to navigate from A to B in urban areas and countryside, most of the time. But "most of the time" simply isn't good enough.

prawn 11y ago
What's hard about detecting the signal ahead as well as the driver behind? The car might just elect to push through the orange rather than stopping abruptly. It could check and make that decision faster than any of us. Or, if paused in traffic with a car approaching too quickly from behind, it could eat up some of the space in front of it to escape/minimise collision. It could balance this decision with the risk of starting a chain reaction by taking that course of action. No one's pretending that these vehicles are ready for prime time now, but that they're ahead of what many would expect as the schedule, and could quickly handle what you've listed as a human advantage.
- hvidgaard 11y ago
  Until it can with certaincy detect the child on the bike behind bushes heading towards the road, it's not ready for 100% autonomous driving. It really doesn't matter how smart or how much experience it does have, if the sensors are inferior to humans.
  - prawn 11y ago
    For some time now they've been able to detect temporary road signs from amongst advertising and other general signage. i.e., changes in speed, maintenance warnings, etc. If a human can see the child on the bike behind bushes, the car can too. Plus it can do it from multiple cameras at once. And calculate the speed and trajectory. And quickly work out the optimal course of action. I really think you're overestimating the ability of humans (who get drunk or distracted, routinely speed, etc) and underestimating the progress of self-driving cars.
    - hvidgaard 11y ago
      I'm not overestimating humans, I never said they couldn't fail. What I base my comments on, is people I know that study AI research (mostly graduate students and some doing their doctorate). All of them say that even state of the art AI for a specific purpose, let's say something as simple as face detection (not recognition, just "this is a face") fails for a lot of inputs. That is not to say some people that are drunk or tired and make the same mistakes as an AI in a driving scenario - the difference is that a computer will always be confused by a scenario that it cannot understand (and in worst case misintreped it), whereas humans have a much easier timer making sense of such situations. Until we have a strong AI with sensory capabilities akin to our own, I doubt we'll see truly selfdriving cars that require no human intervention. I'd love to be proved wrong, but the research is having a hard time breaking the last 1% needed.

prawn 11y ago

What's hard about detecting the signal ahead as well as the driver behind? The car might just elect to push through the orange rather than stopping abruptly. It could check and make that decision faster than any of us. Or, if paused in traffic with a car approaching too quickly from behind, it could eat up some of the space in front of it to escape/minimise collision. It could balance this decision with the risk of starting a chain reaction by taking that course of action. No one's pretending that these vehicles are ready for prime time now, but that they're ahead of what many would expect as the schedule, and could quickly handle what you've listed as a human advantage.

hvidgaard 11y ago
Until it can with certaincy detect the child on the bike behind bushes heading towards the road, it's not ready for 100% autonomous driving. It really doesn't matter how smart or how much experience it does have, if the sensors are inferior to humans.
- prawn 11y ago
  For some time now they've been able to detect temporary road signs from amongst advertising and other general signage. i.e., changes in speed, maintenance warnings, etc. If a human can see the child on the bike behind bushes, the car can too. Plus it can do it from multiple cameras at once. And calculate the speed and trajectory. And quickly work out the optimal course of action. I really think you're overestimating the ability of humans (who get drunk or distracted, routinely speed, etc) and underestimating the progress of self-driving cars.
  - hvidgaard 11y ago
    I'm not overestimating humans, I never said they couldn't fail. What I base my comments on, is people I know that study AI research (mostly graduate students and some doing their doctorate). All of them say that even state of the art AI for a specific purpose, let's say something as simple as face detection (not recognition, just "this is a face") fails for a lot of inputs. That is not to say some people that are drunk or tired and make the same mistakes as an AI in a driving scenario - the difference is that a computer will always be confused by a scenario that it cannot understand (and in worst case misintreped it), whereas humans have a much easier timer making sense of such situations. Until we have a strong AI with sensory capabilities akin to our own, I doubt we'll see truly selfdriving cars that require no human intervention. I'd love to be proved wrong, but the research is having a hard time breaking the last 1% needed.