|
CodeWraith wrote: Really? How will they do that? How do you unit test the AI? How do you prove that your AI can deal with any circumstances a very complex world throws at it?
You must drive somewhere, some other country even, than the one I live in.
Nothing like, every single time, there is a major storm watching the videos of many cars crashed off the side of the road because people failed when driving in that. Not to mention multiple car pile ups where people were going to fast for conditions.
Then there are the accidents where someone hits the wrong pedal and ends up inside a building. Or actual clubs whose sole purpose is to race, actually race, down normal streets late at night. Hundreds of people show up at these meet ups.
Not to mention, drunks, high, medicated (prescribed by the way), falling asleep and a huge variety of other distractions.
I once was on the highway and looked over to see a car with no driver. Turned out the driver was completely prone reaching for something in the passenger seat.
CodeWraith wrote: Look at how miserably we fail at testing normal code made up of simple, limited functions.
However that proves the very point. You are claiming that human programmers are fallible. But so are human drivers. But the code IS tested. Are you claiming that every human driver is tested as extensively? Especially on an on-going basis?
|
|
|
|
|
No. All I am saying is that you are making a deal with the devil. The good part is that the devil likes to honor agreements to the letter, but usually in a way you are not going to like at all.
I have played enough with AI to tell you that exactly this is going to happen. It already happens in simple scenarios and complex real world scenarios just beg for this behavior. It's the very nature of any AI to explore the possibilities within the frame you have set with your directives.
I wish you good luck when someone wants to hold you accountable for the actions of your product and you have to explain everything to a judge.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: No. All I am saying is that you are making a deal with the devil. The good part is that the devil likes to honor agreements to the letter, but usually in a way you are not going to like at all.
I doubt that. For example I would expect that a self-driving car would stop at a red light always. Now I always attempt to stop at red lights. Always. Very occasionally that is a bad decision because I end up sliding through the intersection on the ice. And that is something that I am very ill-equipped to deal with. I suspect a self driving car would be better able to do that.
CodeWraith wrote: I have played enough with AI to tell you that exactly this is going to happen
You mean versus my last three cars that were totaled by the illegal actions of other drivers? So the AI is not going to be obeying the traffic laws and would not be better capable of detecting and avoiding collisions?
CodeWraith wrote: and you have to explain everything to a judge.
Versus the multiple drivers whose cars have already unexpectedly accelerated or refused to stop?
Versus the drivers who are still driving with multiple DUI convictions? Versus the drivers whose licenses are suspended immediately by a judge and then who leave the court and get into their car and drive away?
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that 'all' bugs will be sorted out, but that is not the point. At all. The point is that the system works better than most human drivers. Judging by the very few reports of autonomous vehicles involved in accidents, these systems have already surpassed that mark!
I'm sure if, today, all vehicles would be equipped with the latest autonomous systems, the number of accidents would be drastically reduced, and the main cause for accidents still happening would be pedestrians, bikers, and other road users that are not equipped with such a system for whatever reason, behaving in erratic ways.
The only good reason against such a stepp would be indications that autonomous systems can cause crashs among themselves - so far I am not aware of a single incident of that kind, but of course there are too few autonomous vehcles around for that to be a useful statement at this time.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan_Lang wrote: Judging by the very few reports of autonomous vehicles involved in accidents, these systems have already surpassed that mark!
Read up on how many vehicles are being tested, it's not that many, especially in comparison to the average number of cars on the road in the test areas. Besides, you are basing your statement on reported incidents -- I have little doubt that a lot of "minor" incidents have not been reported.
Let's put this in IT terms: Testing so far has been unit testing. One report mentioned 600 cars. Ok ... over what time span and how many on the road at once? What are the recorded incident types, and how many of each occurred during testing?
So far there's been no system testing, and certainly not load testing. Before we can do these the following critical question must be answered:
How many deaths of innocent persons during testing are an acceptable number?
More deaths will occur as the number of autonomous vehicles are on the road.
|
|
|
|
|
You're assuming that the dead woman was seen. From the initial police statement it seems likely that she managed to successfully hide herself in shadow prior to stepping out onto the road.
"There is video of the crash, which investigators are examining but not been released to the public. "It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir said. Police have previously said Herzberg was not using a crosswalk."
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
It's one thing when you see other road users well ahead that, judging by their current behaviour, can be expected to perhaps act eratically. But it's simply impractical, even impossible, to give everyone a wide berth as well as slowing down your speed, just in case.
I am not aware of autonomous systems that in fact watch other road users and try predict their behaviour, but that doesn't mean they couldn't learn to do just that in the future. The question is whether we want it to have that capability - it may eventually decide that it's not a good idea to give us a ride at all: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
lopati: roaming wrote: If this woman "walked out in front of it so close than nothing could have prevented the collision" seems likely she was already close to the edge of the road, most humans would (1) gently nudge the car away from that lane/road edge before reaching (I'm sure in Az the lanes are wide enough), and (2) pay extra attention to watch for change of direction.
Most? Exactly what percentage is "most"?
I know for a fact that where I live there is a law, a specific law, that says that people must move into another lane when approaching emergency vehicles on the side of the road. They even recently made a special effort to look for and ticket people that did not (so effectively like speed traps.)
So certainly some people believe "most", what ever percentage that is, is certainly not enough in exactly the situation that is most apparent - the one with the big blinding police lights.
That suggests to me that even less than "most" are going to do that when there is some obstacle on the side.
I will note that I do slow down and give extra room. Where upon sometimes other people pass me, sometimes illegally, going at a speed that exceeds the speed limit, when I do so.
lopati: roaming wrote: You see a drunk on the road do you pass within inches or wait till a nice big gap appears...
You think that is an argument for not having self driving cars?
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: she walked out in front of it so close than nothing could have prevented the collision
Common sense and experience would probably have saved her, i don't know how you guys drive but as soon as i see someone behaving like he would just jump on the road i drive slower and focus to react as fast as possible. Same logic as with a ball jumping on the road, expect a kid jumping after it and you'll save a live.
And another thing, the car was obviously speeding  brilliant technology 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen and video of it, so I can't comment - it's entirely possible she was engrossed in her phone and just turned sharply and walked out, I don't know.
If the car was speeding - and not of the reports I've seen have mentioned it - I'd be surprised. Some cars have come with "up to the limit" cruise control for years so I suspect that Uber would have limited it to the posted limit. Heck, my GPS goes "bong, bong, bong" when I exceed a speed limit! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Your right with that, i'd just wanted to point that out 
Well, according to German News the car was driving ~39,5Mph on a 35Mph road, that's speeding i guess.
And yea my GPS does the same 
EDIT:
BTW! found a link Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Where Robots Roam - The New York Times[^]
Don't know how much you like the nytimes, but there are plenty of other papers telling the car has speeded
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
39.5 on a 35 is within the UK "unofficial tolerance" applied by the police: posted speed + 10% + 2.
So they don't worry about 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40, 57 in a 50, ... and 35 would be 40.5
It's to allow for inaccuracies in speedometers and / or tire wear affecting the speedo reading I understand. I'd suspect other countries do the same thing.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I know, we have the same "rule" though it's not 10% but more like 7% + 0 but would you expect an autonomus car that is design to drive BETTER than the human driver to drive faster than officially allowed?
I think if it is 50 or 35 the AI car should drive 50 or 35.
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean, but ... that may be a problem in "real world" traffic which isn't doing that.
Just how annoyed is Joe BMW going to be when driving six inches from a self drive car with the headlights on full beam doesn't speed it up? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously 
I drive a BMW...
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Did you know there are orange bits on each corner of your car that you can make flash to indicate to other drivers where you want to go?
Quote: Just think: no matter how futile your job seems, there is a man whose whole working life has been fitting indicators to BMWs...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I do, most times i use them but the other most times my blinkerfluid is empty so it doesn't work
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
The UK speed tolerance has been tightened, you will now be booked if caught at any speed above the limit. That is not the point, though, the limit is an absolute maximum; you are obliged to drive at a safe speed for the road conditions. In the dark on a road that is badly lit and accessible to pedestrians that is perhaps 20mph. The risk of death to a pedestrian rises steeply between 30 and 40mph, so every mph counts. If you were to program autonomous vehicles to be safe, they would be limited to lower speeds than human ones. And would always give way. And in congested traffic, slowing all vehicles makes journey times less, because flow is restricted by junctions, not maximum speed. But try selling that to anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Be very careful with that, you're quoting years old wisdom.
Many police forces have lowered the "unofficial" tolerance to between 0 and 3% depending on the country, UK included (3%); reasoning is today's speedometers are far more accurate than they were >20 years ago. (In NZ/Australia it's zero and they have days where they enforce that to the brink, often though it mostly it depends on the cop on the day and with respect to prevailing conditions including the speed of the other traffic.)
Anything, even 0.5 mi/km above the speed limit[^] is ticketable even if your speedo is out because it's also "the owners job to keep their vehicle in good, legal, road worthy, and proper working order." Finally they will also state if you are unsure you may drive a little below the posted limit, however too much under, particularly if holding up other traffic is often nearly everywhere also an offence unless you are doing so to avoid a dangerous situation.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I'd suspect other countries do the same thing.
Yep. Brazil is the same. Just slightly different tolerance rules.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
HobbyProggy wrote: Common sense and experience would probably have saved her
Yup, but apparently she was lacking some.
On a more serious note it's true that many human drivers (including myself) watch out for other road users that may act inappropriately and prepare for that possibility, e.g. by slowing down or passing at a wider distance than strictly necessary. However, it's not reasonable (and often not possible) to do this for every other road user, and the reports indicate that the woman was acting abruptly, with little to no prior indication, LiDAR or not. This is the point where you have to rely on others to behave with a reasonable amount of self-preservation. Lacking that, not even AI can break the Darwinian law ...
HobbyProggy wrote: And another thing, the car was obviously speeding
Was it? I only saw statements about it not showing any signs of slowing down. Which is kind of odd, given that the LiDAR systems should have been able to recognize an obstacle and should have caused the system to do something to limit the effect of the impact, assuming that it was too late for evasive maneuvers.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yes.
The latest news i saw was that the woman was crossing the road not abruptly, the car and the safety driver should have recognized her. But we will see what the police will state.
I also i have to correct the speeding thing, initially they said it was driving 40 in a 35 zone, now it shows it was actually a 45 zone, so no speeding.
This article has a good picture of the situation i think -> Pedestrian killed by Uber Self-Driving Car[^]
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. It's much more detailled than any of the other reports I've seen. Not to mention that there are barely two that offer matching information. 
In another forum, someone said that, according to one report, the woman was crossing from west to east, which would mean she had to pass across most of the road before the car hit her. I consider that extremely unlikely as both she should have seen the car well in advance while starting to move across, and the driver should have seen her very clearly as well. Also the statements about the video footage seem to indicate otherwise.
However, if she was indeed coming from the west, I wonder whether she expected the car to see and move around her, not realizing that it was an autonomous car that may not be capable of predicting her (inappropriate) intent correctly. In some places (e. g. Paris, France) this would be a common method of crossing the street (preferably without looking left or right, and your head dug into the wide open newspaper), and the drivers there would indeed go around you, no problem (which means any autonomous system hoping to gain traction there should be able to do the same). But I suspect that in Tempe the traffic standards are not quite like that...
Either way, it seems to me that although AI can beat human intelligence at chess and go, it still fails when faced with true human stupidity.
P.S.: it seems the speed limit changes from 35 to 45 mph a short way to the south of the location shown in that article (speed signs can be seen at the start and end of the bridge in Street View)
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
The article you linked was updated to show part of the video footage.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Saw it, and that clarified for me that the car was malfunctioning and the "safetydriver" failed totally. The darkness is just because the Dashcam doesn't work as good as a human eye, therefore the light seen might be way of what the driver should have seen and this also should not affect the radar components!
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
