ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th March 2018, 03:18 AM   #41
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,508
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ok, but based on that 1v 5300 fatality figure, I'm not sure it is reducing deaths, at least proportionally.

If driverless reduce casualties, that's great. Fantastic even. But the liability question is still interesting. Could maintanence personnel who service the car be found to be criminally negligent for improperly servicing sensors?
I don't think that is anything new?

Wouldn't relevant laws and precedent already have been set for this type of liability? For instance maintenance personnel not properly servicing say brakes and an accident subsequently happens?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 03:21 AM   #42
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,383
Does walking a bike or pushing a shopping cart cause these systems to have recognition trouble?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 03:29 AM   #43
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,508
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Does walking a bike or pushing a shopping cart cause these systems to have recognition trouble?
Given they are very common things I wouldn't have thought so else they wouldn't be as far advanced as they seem to be.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 04:26 AM   #44
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,599
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Does walking a bike or pushing a shopping cart cause these systems to have recognition trouble?
No, but if she stepped out from behind something directly into the path of the car, there may have been no time for evasive maneuver or braking. While reactions are supposed to be better, you still have limitations on the mechanical capabilities.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 06:20 AM   #45
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Does walking a bike or pushing a shopping cart cause these systems to have recognition trouble?
I don't know what the state of the art is with this sort of technology. I don't have any insider information. I have done vision processing, and I've taken a couple of relevant classes.

With that disclaimer out of the way.....

Yes, it does. What I don't know is how much work has gone into overcoming those difficulties. I would expect that the visual system would still be able to recognize the bike-person combination as including a person, but the lidar would not. In the dark, the vision system might not have enough information to realize that thing has a face, in which case it would just be picked up as an object of a certain dimension with a certain velocity.

In the reading I have done, I was surprised how little recognition actually goes on. As best I can tell, the vehicle can generally recognize the location of people, and of other vehicles (of known types). The rest of the world is "objects" that have a certain outline, and a certain velocity of movement.

In my opinion, that's not good enough to be safe. I think it needs a better ability to actually discern what those objects really are, and what they are likely to do. I know there is a lot of research in this area going on. I saw one paper discussing behavioral models of cats, which was useful for avoiding collisions with cats. (Regardless of your opinion of cats, it's still a good idea to avoid hitting them. It upsets people, and it could cause your car to change velocity and hit something important.) I don't know how far much of this research has been incorporated into the cars that are currently being tested on the roads.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 06:34 AM   #46
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,547
Meh, human walks in front of vehicle, gets hit, dies. Not news.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 06:54 AM   #47
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,010
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post

Based on preliminary information, the car was going approximately 40 mph in a 35 mph zone, according to Tempe Police Detective Lily Duran.
Isn't a self-driving car programmed to adhere to the speed limits?
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:00 AM   #48
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,274
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Isn't a self-driving car programmed to adhere to the speed limits?
Everytime we discuss speeding in any context on this board we get a wave of people arguing that the "Flow of traffic" is some Holy disposition that over rides the laws of man, that you can be going down a 25 mile an hour street at .999 percent light speed as long as you are keeping up with "the flow of traffic."

Perhaps the programming for the car has a 5-10 mph variance built into it to account for the "flow of traffic."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:04 AM   #49
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,076
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Everytime we discuss speeding in any context on this board we get a wave of people arguing that the "Flow of traffic" is some Holy disposition that over rides the laws of man, that you can be going down a 25 mile an hour street at .999 percent light speed as long as you are keeping up with "the flow of traffic."

Perhaps the programming for the car has a 5-10 mph variance built into it to account for the "flow of traffic."
Had someone blow through a red light and hit my car with that logic.

If I had been keeping up with the flow of traffic he wouldn't have hit me avoiding to him. So it wasn't him blowing through the light it was me throwing off his timing.

Whenever I hear someone going on about the flow of traffic I translate it to "I'm a super aggressive driver and in justifying it by insinuating everyone else is just as much of a knob as I am so we should actually be following a special set of road rules made by me".
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:10 AM   #50
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,433
Obviously it Uber system isn't ready for commercial use - it is sad that it took a fatality to find that out.
We can safely assume that a self-driving car is not supposed to exceed the speed limit.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:11 AM   #51
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,274
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Obviously it Uber system isn't ready for commercial use - it is sad that it took a fatality to find that out.
We can safely assume that a self-driving car is not supposed to exceed the speed limit.
Right we should replace it with a human driver because human drivers never break the speed limit.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:20 AM   #52
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 28,163
I don't want a self-driving car. I want a car that can change its own oil and rotate its own tires.
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady

"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky

"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:25 AM   #53
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,508
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Obviously it Uber system isn't ready for commercial use - it is sad that it took a fatality to find that out.
We can safely assume that a self-driving car is not supposed to exceed the speed limit.
Nope you've got that a tad twisted around. We know they are not ready yet that is why they are being trailed and not being rolled out. We didn't need a fatality to tell us that.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:29 AM   #54
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,433
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope you've got that a tad twisted around. We know they are not ready yet that is why they are being trailed and not being rolled out. We didn't need a fatality to tell us that.
Yes and no.
The accident was one of those rare events that a car A.I. is probably not prepared for - because engineers usually don't cross 8 lanes in the dark pushing a bicycle.
The data provide by this will likely make autonomous cars even safer.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:39 AM   #55
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Sounds like it wouldn't be much better than a human at reacting to a sudden situation, such as a child darting out from between parked cars.
A human might see children playing in a yard, and anticipate the child darting after the ball?
Or they might do 40 in a 25 like I used to see constantly when I was growing up.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:43 AM   #56
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,716
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
I don't want a self-driving car. I want a car that can change its own oil and rotate its own tires.
How's it going to drive if the tires don't rotate?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 07:58 AM   #57
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,646
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Does walking a bike or pushing a shopping cart cause these systems to have recognition trouble?
I was wondering about that too. The bike also seems to have had a bunch of bags tied to or hanging from the handlebars.

From what I recall, the cars are programmed to look at things next to the road and evaluate the probability of that thing moving onto the road.

It sees a tree next to the road and is programmed to recognize a tree as an object that will not walk onto the road. The same for a traffic sign, a mailbox, this, that, and the other thing. It does not need to slow down or swerve in anticipation of anything.

It sees a deer next to the road and recognizes that as an object that might move onto the road, even if the deer is not moving when the car sees it. The same for people, dogs, and such. It also has some idea of how quickly that thing might move onto the road. That's why (and I'm not joking about this) kangaroos are hard. They look enough like humans to confuse a computer, but move much, much faster and don't behave the same ways as a human.

A person hunched over a bike (standing next to it, not riding it) with a bunch of bags hanging from it might be different enough for the computer to not be able to recognize it as such, especially if she was not moving at the time. It might think it is just an inanimate object next to the road, like a pile of trash or something. It might not slow down or move a bit to the left as it might do if it recognized a person standing there.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 08:15 AM   #58
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,781
DailyMail says the car was going 40 in a 45mph zone. The driver is a convicted felon woman though Uber did hire her. The victim was a petty criminal homeless woman.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 08:16 AM   #59
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,599
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I was wondering about that too. The bike also seems to have had a bunch of bags tied to or hanging from the handlebars.

From what I recall, the cars are programmed to look at things next to the road and evaluate the probability of that thing moving onto the road.

It sees a tree next to the road and is programmed to recognize a tree as an object that will not walk onto the road. The same for a traffic sign, a mailbox, this, that, and the other thing. It does not need to slow down or swerve in anticipation of anything.

It sees a deer next to the road and recognizes that as an object that might move onto the road, even if the deer is not moving when the car sees it. The same for people, dogs, and such. It also has some idea of how quickly that thing might move onto the road. That's why (and I'm not joking about this) kangaroos are hard. They look enough like humans to confuse a computer, but move much, much faster and don't behave the same ways as a human.

A person hunched over a bike (standing next to it, not riding it) with a bunch of bags hanging from it might be different enough for the computer to not be able to recognize it as such, especially if she was not moving at the time. It might think it is just an inanimate object next to the road, like a pile of trash or something. It might not slow down or move a bit to the left as it might do if it recognized a person standing there.
The road is mapped, so objects like trees and mailboxes are fixed and used as reference points. Not sure about Uber's, but since it is based (stolen?) from Waymo, it can differentiate between people and other objects. While there are still plenty of things to work out, a person with a bike is not something outside it's database - most likely.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 08:28 AM   #60
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,646
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
While there are still plenty of things to work out, a person with a bike is not something outside it's database - most likely.
I understand that. In photos of the accident site, the bike is visible, with a whole bunch of staff attached to it. I was thinking that the stuff might have made the bike look different enough from that database profile to throw things off.

If the person was also covered up, that could further obscure the image, making it hard for the computer to distinguish two separate objects (bike and person).

But then again, I had forgotten how strongly they rely on mapped routes. It should at least have recognized that an object was there that had not been there previously. I would guess that the cars assume that unmapped unrecognizable objects might move.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 08:37 AM   #61
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,001
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Obviously it Uber system isn't ready for commercial use - it is sad that it took a fatality to find that out.
Odd. How are you certain that this is the AI's fault when the police haven't released that information?

There will be more data on this collision than there has ever been for pedestrian fatality in Arizona history. It will take time to investigate, but they will have more certainty about what actually happened than they ever have had before.

If this were just a human driver and they pulled over to report the collision it is likely they wouldn't have even been given a ticket. "Lady stepped out in my lane and I didn't have time to react. Jesus christ, what was she thinking?" That would pretty much end the investigation since she wasn't in a crosswalk.

Quote:
We can safely assume that a self-driving car is not supposed to exceed the speed limit.
Indeed. I trust the car more than the news report saying it was speeding. Mainly because Uber drivers seem to be trained to only drive within the speed limit, so I would assume it is something that is important to them as a company and this importance would be reflected in their software. But, we will see.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 09:37 AM   #62
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,130
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
How's it going to drive if the tires don't rotate?

Dave
The WHAT?

Traitor.

__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 10:07 AM   #63
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,267
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Yes, it is. There was a fascinating episode of Horizon (I think) on the BBC last year which explained the various levels of autonomy in cars and one topic they covered was the difficulty of teaching vehicles to fit in with the differences in driving cultures between countries with essentially the same driving rules.

Another thing they touched on, by the way, was level 3 autonomy (where the human driver is expected to be ready to take over whenever the car can't cope). The human mostly has nothing to do, becomes bored and so won't have been paying any attention when the car suddenly needs them to take over. I think I read elsewhere (maybe even on here) that Ford, amongst others, have ditched any research into level 3 autonomous cars as their test drivers keep falling asleep. They tried putting co-drivers in the cars, whose sole job was to keep the drivers awake, and they fell asleep too.
I think the job of "safety driver" is damn difficult for the average human to do. 99+% of the time, you have nothing to do, so it is going to be almost impossible to stay alert, and when something does happen, you are likely to be, if not asleep, at least not paying attention. When you are actually driving, you have to pay attention.

It is also the case, whether the driver is human or robot, that situations may develop where it is physically impossible to avoid an accident, for example a pedestrian or animal moves into the path of the car without sufficient distance to stop or steer around, or traffic in adjacent lanes prevents evasive steering. This could also be the case for a car running a red light or stop sign. It is not clear at this point whether hitting the pedestrian was unavoidable, or whether there was a failure of the driving software to avoid an avoidable accident.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 10:13 AM   #64
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,508
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I think the job of "safety driver" is damn difficult for the average human to do. 99+% of the time, you have nothing to do, so it is going to be almost impossible to stay alert, and when something does happen, you are likely to be, if not asleep, at least not paying attention. When you are actually driving, you have to pay attention.

It is also the case, whether the driver is human or robot, that situations may develop where it is physically impossible to avoid an accident, for example a pedestrian or animal moves into the path of the car without sufficient distance to stop or steer around, or traffic in adjacent lanes prevents evasive steering. This could also be the case for a car running a red light or stop sign. It is not clear at this point whether hitting the pedestrian was unavoidable, or whether there was a failure of the driving software to avoid an avoidable accident.
And hopefully because these are prototypes there should be more than sufficient data available to make such a determination.

Accidents and mistakes will still happen even with the best hardware and software it is the accident and mistake rate and the rate compared to humans that should determine if we adopt such technologies wholescale.

One of the very strange things that is being reported on is the speeding of the car, wonder if it was in fact attempting to avoid her by trying to accelerate past her or something similar. Keeping to the speed limit is an already achievable automation so it would seem very worrying if the car was failing to do so.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 20th March 2018 at 10:13 AM. Reason: 'apen some happying
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 10:36 AM   #65
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,274
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
DailyMail says the car was going 40 in a 45mph zone. The driver is a convicted felon woman though Uber did hire her. The victim was a petty criminal homeless woman.
Oh thank God I was worried some actual human beings were involved in this.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 11:21 AM   #66
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,599
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I understand that. In photos of the accident site, the bike is visible, with a whole bunch of staff attached to it. I was thinking that the stuff might have made the bike look different enough from that database profile to throw things off.

If the person was also covered up, that could further obscure the image, making it hard for the computer to distinguish two separate objects (bike and person).

But then again, I had forgotten how strongly they rely on mapped routes. It should at least have recognized that an object was there that had not been there previously. I would guess that the cars assume that unmapped unrecognizable objects might move.
Depending on how advanced the system is, it can not only recognize a person but can make projections on possible movements. So it is not only trying to verify humans, but to make predictions as a human driver would do.

One of the things that needs worked on, like you touched on, is unrecognizable objects. While normal things like cars, bike, etc are within the database, other things can screw up the system - but typically on the side of safety. For example, something like a tumbleweed or even a bag blowing in front of the sensor has a high probability of stopping the car.

So you could very well be correct that the person was only identified as an object that might move. I would think that there would have been an evasive maneuver or attempt at breaking (which could have happened, we just don't have the detail) or there was just not enough time to react. Also, not knowing the system or algorithms, it could have just been a miss in the programming or a blind spot in the sensing system.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 11:23 AM   #67
Psi Baba
Homo Skepticalis
 
Psi Baba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,006
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The data provide by this will likely make autonomous cars even safer.
That is one the most important differences. Human drivers, as a whole, will not get any better than they are now (and due to distractions such as texting, they are probably getting worse), whereas autonomous vehicles will gradually improve.
__________________
We have reached a point in time where reality and satire have intersected and now you can't tell the difference. -- Lewis Black

There is a cult of ignorance . . . nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. -- Isaac Asimov
Psi Baba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 12:19 PM   #68
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,267
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Obviously it Uber system isn't ready for commercial use - it is sad that it took a fatality to find that out.
We can safely assume that a self-driving car is not supposed to exceed the speed limit.
I'd be curious to know how the speed was determined, and how accurate it is. Five miles per hour isn't a huge amount over (very likely the car was going slower than most of those driven by humans on that road), and may well be within the margin of error of however that speed was measured.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 12:42 PM   #69
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,433
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Odd. How are you certain that this is the AI's fault when the police haven't released that information?
The fault is clearly with the pedestrian, first and foremost.
I understand that the car was driving at the time, not the "emergency human".
It is very likely that a human driver would have been unable to prevent the accident, either.
But hopefully a better autonomous car could seen more and react faster and so could have avoided hitting the pedestrian.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 12:46 PM   #70
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Whenever I hear someone going on about the flow of traffic I translate it to "I'm a super aggressive driver and in justifying it by insinuating everyone else is just as much of a knob as I am so we should actually be following a special set of road rules made by me".
Well, I guess if you were driving along at 50km/h in a 50km/h zone and had some aggressive asshat tailgating you so close that you couldn't see his number plate in the rear view mirror, who then overtook you in a dangerous manner and was more interesting in giving you the finger or shaking his fist at you than watching the oncoming traffic, putting yours, his and other road user's lives at risk, you might think that keeping up with the flow of the traffic might actually be the safer bet!!!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 20th March 2018 at 12:50 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 12:57 PM   #71
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,001
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The fault is clearly with the pedestrian, first and foremost.
I'm not sure that is even clear yet, but it does seem that it may be true.

Quote:
I understand that the car was driving at the time, not the "emergency human".
It is very likely that a human driver would have been unable to prevent the accident, either.
But hopefully a better autonomous car could seen more and react faster and so could have avoided hitting the pedestrian.
I think I agree with this, but it leaves me wondering what you meant by "isn't ready for commercial use". Does it have to be perfect or as perfect as the laws of physics allow before it is ready? Or, is "better than the average human driver" good enough for commercial use.

As another poster pointed out in the other thread, the AI can learn from this and get better. It will improve over time. While human drivers have not been improving as of late.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 01:26 PM   #72
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,433
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I think I agree with this, but it leaves me wondering what you meant by "isn't ready for commercial use". Does it have to be perfect or as perfect as the laws of physics allow before it is ready? Or, is "better than the average human driver" good enough for commercial use.
This is a good question.
Theoretically, it should be enough for the car to be as safe as the average human, given the convenience of not having to drive and park the car.
In practice, in order to be generally accepted, I believe it has to show itself to be much safer, since humans consistently overestimate their driving skills and underestimate the risks of driving.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 01:37 PM   #73
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I'm not sure that is even clear yet, but it does seem that it may be true.



I think I agree with this, but it leaves me wondering what you meant by "isn't ready for commercial use". Does it have to be perfect or as perfect as the laws of physics allow before it is ready? Or, is "better than the average human driver" good enough for commercial use.

As another poster pointed out in the other thread, the AI can learn from this and get better. It will improve over time. While human drivers have not been improving as of late.
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
This is a good question.
Theoretically, it should be enough for the car to be as safe as the average human, given the convenience of not having to drive and park the car.
In practice, in order to be generally accepted, I believe it has to show itself to be much safer, since humans consistently overestimate their driving skills and underestimate the risks of driving.
It has to be "better than the average human thinks he is."
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 01:47 PM   #74
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 58,727
Why didn't the human driver take over in the emergency situation like they are supposed to?
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 01:53 PM   #75
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,106
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why didn't the human driver take over in the emergency situation like they are supposed to?

Humans 1 : Driverless Cars 0


Can't have that.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 01:54 PM   #76
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,646
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why didn't the human driver take over in the emergency situation like they are supposed to?
It seems as if there wasn't time. The local police have indicated that a human driver would probably not have been able to react fast enough either.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 01:54 PM   #77
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,001
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
This is a good question.
Theoretically, it should be enough for the car to be as safe as the average human, given the convenience of not having to drive and park the car.
In practice, in order to be generally accepted, I believe it has to show itself to be much safer, since humans consistently overestimate their driving skills and underestimate the risks of driving.
Fair enough, and I think I agree that it will have to be much better than the average driver to be commercially viable. But that does lead to the problem Meadmaker points out:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It has to be "better than the average human thinks he is."
Based on some discussions here I don't think that is physically possible. The average human's ego has no bounds.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 20th March 2018 at 01:56 PM.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 02:01 PM   #78
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,801
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Sounds like it wouldn't be much better than a human at reacting to a sudden situation, such as a child darting out from between parked cars.
A human might see children playing in a yard, and anticipate the child darting after the ball?
Happened to me a few days ago. I saw the neighbors kids playing in our street (end of a cul-de-sac) when I left my house. Coming home I remembered they were there earlier and saw them playing on the sidewalk behind a parked truck. I slowed down even more.

As I passed the truck a small child darted out into the street. He just started running, I don't know why. His mom grabbed him before he made it far enough, but I saw him coming and stopped.

He was going to cross the street I could tell, he was goin' for it! I would not have hit him even if his Mom hadn't stopped him. I don't know how I'd live with myself even if it wasn't my fault.

Mom acted fast and gave him an angry "talking to" and I parked. Whew! I am always always scanning sidewalks for kids in neighborhoods I drive through. I believe the autonomous cars are supposed to do that as well.

Funny thing is I rarely see kids playing outside at all. I rarely see children in my town, or in San Jose when I lived there. Weird. I can drive a mile down a sunny neighborhood road and see zero kids on front lawns playing, or anywhere, even the parks. I'm surprised when I do see kids.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 02:13 PM   #79
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,106
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Everytime we discuss speeding in any context on this board we get a wave of people arguing that the "Flow of traffic" is some Holy disposition that over rides the laws of man, that you can be going down a 25 mile an hour street at .999 percent light speed as long as you are keeping up with "the flow of traffic."

Perhaps the programming for the car has a 5-10 mph variance built into it to account for the "flow of traffic."
I picture a different scene. Freeway: person1 going the speed limit in the overtaking lane, when person2 comes up behind them (not doing the speed limit, obviously) and honks or puts the brights on, but person1 refuses to move over because "they're going the speed limit!". Person2 has to overtake in the slow lane.


Interesting aside: Hanging out in the fast lane and overtaking in the slow lane are both ticketable offenses in Germany and I doubt Germany would allow their driverless cars to do it either.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 02:15 PM   #80
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,604
[quote=mgidm86;12225609]Happened to me a few days ago. I saw the neighbors kids playing in our street (end of a cul-de-sac) when I left my house. Coming home I remembered they were there earlier and saw them playing on the sidewalk behind a parked truck. I slowed down even more.

As I passed the truck a small child darted out into the street. .. /QUOTE]

Yep, but if you see kids playing on a lawn down beyond a parked truck you make allowances, just as you did. The kids aren't directly associated with the road and there are no direct signals they might run out, but you 'know what kids are like'. That's a hard thing to program into an AV.

Kids playing on lawn = danger

Adults milling around a bus stop = not so much danger
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.