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 24th March 2018, 06:43 AM   #241
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
The disturbing thing here is that the autonomous system apparently did not even try to stop. That implies some kind of malfunction.
Why is this disturbing? Surely we are forcing self drive cars through all this testing because we expect such failures?

The part that bothers me is that they chose to drive in conditions and at a speed where the human behind the wheel would have been unlikely to have been able to avert an accident, and they don't seem to care whether the human behind the wheel is paying any kind of attention to the road. That last one is one of the causes of the Tesla self drive death. All that is within their control.

Self drive isn't about maximising safety.
shuttlt 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 24th March 2018, 06:50 AM   #242
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,604
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Why is this disturbing? Surely we are forcing self drive cars through all this testing because we expect such failures?
For my money at least attempting to stop in such a situation is so fundamental it gets sorted out in the lab and test track, not on public roads.
__________________
"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
Old 24th March 2018, 07:52 AM   #243
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,044
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
For my money at least attempting to stop in such a situation is so fundamental it gets sorted out in the lab and test track, not on public roads.
Yes, and because the radar assist on my car manages this.
There are reports that the Volvo's inherent driving assist was disabled.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 24th March 2018, 03:52 PM   #244
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I also find it disturbing that the systems didn't detect her (a substantial moving object) much earlier.
Did it ever detect her? What systems detected her - apart from the bumpers, If they are a part of the detection system?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 24th March 2018, 04:07 PM   #245
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Why is this disturbing? Surely we are forcing self drive cars through all this testing because we expect such failures?
Yes, and no. Failures are expected, but fatal crashes where the detection systems apparently do not detect anything, are not expected.


Quote:
The part that bothers me is that they chose to drive in conditions and at a speed where the human behind the wheel would have been unlikely to have been able to avert an accident, and they don't seem to care whether the human behind the wheel is paying any kind of attention to the road.
It has been stressed several times that human intervention is impossible because of the reaction times involved. The human will have to wait for the reaction of the self drive system before deciding to intervene. Humans are really only useful in situations where fast reaction is not necessary, like when the car gets into an unexpected situation at slow speed.



Quote:
Self drive isn't about maximising safety.
I do not have a driver's license, and I am looking forward to be able to having my own car drive me wherever I want without me needing a license. Besides, I can get out of the car, and it will park the car afterwards. The safety needs not to be maximized, but it should at least be as safe as if I drove the car myself (after having learned how to do it).
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 24th March 2018, 10:58 PM   #246
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Yes, and no. Failures are expected, but fatal crashes where the detection systems apparently do not detect anything, are not expected.
It will be interesting to see how much information is released from the investigation. I would like to know at what point the sensors (cameras, lidar, whatever else was in use) first received a signal from the person and/or bicycle. Then, at what point did the "brains" of the car identify that those signals were a person and/or bicycle. Did it process the speed of the person/bicycle pair? Was there information contained in the signal that could have told the system that information, but software did not detect it properly?

There are really several steps in "detecting" a person with a bicycle. First, the sensor itself is stimulated and sends the information to the processing system. Then, the image is processed in a variety of ways, until at some point the processing system identifies that there is a person at a particular location, moving at a specific velocity. The question is whether that determination was ever made, and if so, when. Or did the system fail earlier in the process?
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 24th March 2018, 11:38 PM   #247
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
[...] Then, the image is processed in a variety of ways, until at some point the processing system identifies that there is a person at a particular location, moving at a specific velocity. [...]
Does the system need to identify the object as a person? I would think that no matter what kind of large object is going to cross the path of the car, it should be avoided.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 24th March 2018, 11:39 PM   #248
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,979
Questions
1. Can a radar easily detect a human that has no metal?
2. Can a ladar easily detect a human that is wearing black?

I have no idea of the answers but if the answer to be questions is no then there is the reason for the accident.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 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 25th March 2018, 12:20 AM   #249
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,433
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Questions
1. Can a radar easily detect a human that has no metal?
2. Can a ladar easily detect a human that is wearing black?

I have no idea of the answers but if the answer to be questions is no then there is the reason for the accident.
She was pushing a bicycle.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
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 25th March 2018, 01:41 AM   #250
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
For my money at least attempting to stop in such a situation is so fundamental it gets sorted out in the lab and test track, not on public roads.
Mostly it does. You have to go out of the lab to find the edge cases.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
shuttlt 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 25th March 2018, 01:49 AM   #251
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Like many others, my car has a radar that apparently would apply the brakes to prevent certain types of collision. It's not perfect - the sensor can get obscured by driving snow, for example but as an additional safety feature, supervising the human it's good. Far better than a human supervising a machine when you need quick reactions.
I have similar system too. (IIRC Active when speed between 30-50 KM/H, first sounds a warning then if no change will brake automatically)

Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Okay, that's mental.






Would it? Or would it make people seem safer so they drive more dangerously leaving the overall risk about the same? It seems fairly well documented that people adopt riskier behavior when they know there's something in place to moderate that risk.
Those who are already prone to that, are already doing that. No real change there. For rest of us, it would provide vital information.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
The highlighted numbers are consistent.

Although an autonomous vehicle might have been able to react in time to save Herzberg's life, that is not the same as saying it wouldn't have hit her.

Furthermore, if those numbers are correct, then a human driver would probably not have been able to stop in time to avoid hitting her. If the car was traveling at 38 mph, that's 61 kph, or 17 meters per second, or 56 feet per second. The 50-foot distance at time of recognition is just over 15 meters. According to a braking distance calculator, a human driver probably wouldn't have been able to stop before the vehicle would travel 45 meters: 25 meters before the driver would react (in about 1.5 seconds) plus 20 meters with the brakes applied.

That's for a "medium-sized car with good tyres on a dry road".

The disturbing thing here is that the autonomous system apparently did not even try to stop. That implies some kind of malfunction.
Sorry, your post is incorrect as it is based on wrong assumptions.

it seems you are going by article that uses only Uber video. Detection distance even by visual should have been far higher!

Human driver would be actually able to react in time, because actual visibility is better then in Uber video and low headlights extend quite far ahead.

Article that ahs some analysis and has video of are where accident happened:
Police chief said Uber victim “came from the shadows”—don’t believe it
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 25th March 2018, 01:59 AM   #252
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,044
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Questions
1. Can a radar easily detect a human that has no metal?
2. Can a ladar easily detect a human that is wearing black?

I have no idea of the answers but if the answer to be questions is no then there is the reason for the accident.
2. LIDAR is Laser Infra-red based so visible colours are unimportant, just IR reflectivity.

As an aside, the distance resolution is a function of wavelength and angular resolution a function of wavelength and antenna width. Automotive radars use either 24GHz or 77GHz frequency bands, which my sums make about 13mm or 4mm wavelengths. IR lasers at 1.5um are very common in the communication industry, so would be fairly cheap and with the ability to have thousands of times better resolution.

This is one reason why LIDAR is considered such a good bet for autonomous vehicles.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 25th March 2018, 02:01 AM   #253
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Yes, and no. Failures are expected, but fatal crashes where the detection systems apparently do not detect anything, are not expected.
Why is this not expected? Tesla had a fatal crash where it failed to detect a sideways on trailer. Did people assume Tesla were incompetent? I get the impression people think the auto breaking systems in conventional cars are 100% effective. Are they?

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
It has been stressed several times that human intervention is impossible because of the reaction times involved. The human will have to wait for the reaction of the self drive system before deciding to intervene. Humans are really only useful in situations where fast reaction is not necessary, like when the car gets into an unexpected situation at slow speed.
Why is the car driving in such a way that human reaction times are not able to cope? They don't have to, surely? Humans have to intervene in self drive in slow moving situations, so the assumption is surely that the computer will screw up at least as much when driving quickly.

Every day humans deal with other humans slowly crossing the street ahead of them and generally don't hit them. Its not like she was concealed behind a parked car and leapt out at the last minute.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I do not have a driver's license, and I am looking forward to be able to having my own car drive me wherever I want without me needing a license. Besides, I can get out of the car, and it will park the car afterwards. The safety needs not to be maximized, but it should at least be as safe as if I drove the car myself (after having learned how to do it).
That and commoditising cars so you don't own one and some company has an Amazon like monopoly is the reason for self drive.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
shuttlt 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 25th March 2018, 02:06 AM   #254
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,044
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
I have similar system too. (IIRC Active when speed between 30-50 KM/H, first sounds a warning then if no change will brake automatically)



Those who are already prone to that, are already doing that. No real change there. For rest of us, it would provide vital information.



Sorry, your post is incorrect as it is based on wrong assumptions.

it seems you are going by article that uses only Uber video. Detection distance even by visual should have been far higher!

Human driver would be actually able to react in time, because actual visibility is better then in Uber video and low headlights extend quite far ahead.

Article that ahs some analysis and has video of are where accident happened:
Police chief said Uber victim “came from the shadows”—don’t believe it
Indeed, if the stopping distance is further than you can see, you are travelling too fast. Ditto for autonomous vehicles. If it is travelling so fast that its supervisor can't see beyond its stopping distance, or it can't detect fallen children beyond its stopping distance, it is travelling too fast.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 25th March 2018 at 02:09 AM.
jimbob 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 25th March 2018, 05:34 AM   #255
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
You do know there is already a thread on this, do you not???? With exactly the same title...........
fuelair 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 25th March 2018, 06:37 AM   #256
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,038
I'm getting a little confused again about which thread I'm in and may have posted similarly on the other, but I'll add that one issue here is the false sense of safety given by having a human backup.

If a human backup does not intervene until noticing that the automated system has failed, this kind of situation will always be no better than the automated system. It may be good public relations, but when reaction time is critical it will always be too late.

If Uber and their like are releasing a beta system with the assurance that the human backup will prevent its failures from being critical, they're whistling Dixie.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto 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 25th March 2018, 08:21 AM   #257
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Mostly it does. You have to go out of the lab to find the edge cases.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
This was no edge case, though.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 25th March 2018, 08:26 AM   #258
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,604
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Mostly it does. You have to go out of the lab to find the edge cases.
This isn't an 'edge case'. Even if it were an 'edge case' it's one that's easily tested on the track. Something went badly wrong here, and not in a marginal way.
__________________
"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
Old 25th March 2018, 08:56 AM   #259
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
This isn't an 'edge case'. Even if it were an 'edge case' it's one that's easily tested on the track. Something went badly wrong here, and not in a marginal way.
Sure, but the system is already detecting obstacles in its path with high reliability. If it didn't, these cars would already be a joke due to going into the back of everything. What we are talking about is a low probability event, the same as the Tesla death. The real world is necessarily going to throw input at the system that hasn't been tested on the test track. They have to walk a line between detecting real obstacles 100% of the time, and not doing an emergency stop every time some mud gets on a sensor, or some leaves get blown across the road. I don't think it is such an easy problem, and I don't see how it can be solved without driving on real roads and making errors like this.
shuttlt 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 25th March 2018, 08:59 AM   #260
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
This was no edge case, though.
How so? Uber self drive cars generally don't run people down or crash into other cars, so something about the data coming in to the car must have been unusual, or the state of the automation must have been unusual for the failure to have occurred... no?
shuttlt 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 25th March 2018, 09:06 AM   #261
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Questions
1. Can a radar easily detect a human that has no metal?
2. Can a ladar easily detect a human that is wearing black?

I have no idea of the answers but if the answer to be questions is no then there is the reason for the accident.
The lidar system can detect non-metal, black colored objects.
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 25th March 2018, 09:14 AM   #262
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Does the system need to identify the object as a person? I would think that no matter what kind of large object is going to cross the path of the car, it should be avoided.
That's true. Merely noting that a large object is moving in a certain direction should be enough to make the car react. The additional knowledge that the object is a person should provide additional information about possible future actions of the object, perhaps suggesting a different avoidance mechanism. In other words, the car should have detected one or more "moving objects", and it also should have recognized "human", and I assume it ought to be able to detect "bicycle".

We'll have to wait some time to see which of those "should" s didn't happen, if that information is ever released in a public report.
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 25th March 2018, 09:26 AM   #263
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,106
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Why is this not expected? Tesla had a fatal crash where it failed to detect a sideways on trailer. Did people assume Tesla were incompetent? I get the impression people think the auto breaking systems in conventional cars are 100% effective. Are they?


Why is the car driving in such a way that human reaction times are not able to cope? They don't have to, surely? Humans have to intervene in self drive in slow moving situations, so the assumption is surely that the computer will screw up at least as much when driving quickly.

Every day humans deal with other humans slowly crossing the street ahead of them and generally don't hit them. Its not like she was concealed behind a parked car and leapt out at the last minute.


That and commoditising cars so you don't own one and some company has an Amazon like monopoly is the reason for self drive.






Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk

You all should be using the driverless bus anyway. Aren't we all supposed be using less energy and doing our best to reduce our carbon footprint?



ETA: In before the close.
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 25th March 2018, 01:58 PM   #264
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Indeed, if the stopping distance is further than you can see, you are travelling too fast. Ditto for autonomous vehicles. If it is travelling so fast that its supervisor can't see beyond its stopping distance, or it can't detect fallen children beyond its stopping distance, it is travelling too fast.
If the test is going to take place at speeds where the human supervisor has a chance of taking over, this test is not going to test realistic speeds, and will be worthless - unless self driven cars are forced to drive far slower than human driven cars.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 25th March 2018, 02:06 PM   #265
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,044
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
If the test is going to take place at speeds where the human supervisor has a chance of taking over, this test is not going to test realistic speeds, and will be worthless - unless self driven cars are forced to drive far slower than human driven cars.
It's been pointed out that the testing model involving a human to make emergency interventions is flawed.

It would be very boring being a tester in effect being a passanger for hundreds of hours (5000 miles typical distance between interventions) without needing to do anything and yet be expected to react in an emergency.

That's not possible for most humans.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 25th March 2018, 02:42 PM   #266
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
It's been pointed out that the testing model involving a human to make emergency interventions is flawed.

It would be very boring being a tester in effect being a passanger for hundreds of hours (5000 miles typical distance between interventions) without needing to do anything and yet be expected to react in an emergency.

That's not possible for most humans.
There is a claim going around that Uber's intervention rate is a lot higher than that.

In any case, neither of the deaths have been about fast reactions. In both cases the car failed to see something and drove into it, while the human driver wasn't looking. They could ensure the driver was paying attention, or at least looking at the road with their hands on the wheel, if they wanted to.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
shuttlt 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 25th March 2018, 03:07 PM   #267
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,044
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
There is a claim going around that Uber's intervention rate is a lot higher than that.

In any case, neither of the deaths have been about fast reactions. In both cases the car failed to see something and drove into it, while the human driver wasn't looking. They could ensure the driver was paying attention, or at least looking at the road with their hands on the wheel, if they wanted to.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
Ideally yes, but I suspect it would be far more boring than say being a pilot with a co-pilot on a transatlantic flight with the autopilot engaged.

I would think that even with good intentions, one would be able to focus for far less time than an "active" driver. Attention could be drifting within an hour, certainly by two.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 25th March 2018, 11:16 PM   #268
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
How so? Uber self drive cars generally don't run people down or crash into other cars, so something about the data coming in to the car must have been unusual, or the state of the automation must have been unusual for the failure to have occurred... no?
Evidence? Why do you think Uber is in Arizona in the first place? Because there are no reporting requirements, unlike in California.

Still this was no edge case. Pedestrians crossing roads are extremely common and if it is bloody edge case for bloody AV car, then they have no business being in public! In such case, back to lab and test roads, because those AV are dangerous crap and even worse then standard human driver!
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 25th March 2018, 11:34 PM   #269
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,044
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Evidence? Why do you think Uber is in Arizona in the first place? Because there are no reporting requirements, unlike in California.

Still this was no edge case. Pedestrians crossing roads are extremely common and if it is bloody edge case for bloody AV car, then they have no business being in public! In such case, back to lab and test roads, because those AV are dangerous crap and even worse then standard human driver!
Uber seems to revel in being a bunch of cowboys.

It's not ideal for developing technology with potentially serious consequences.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 25th March 2018, 11:39 PM   #270
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Still this was no edge case. Pedestrians crossing roads are extremely common and if it is bloody edge case for bloody AV car, then they have no business being in public! In such case, back to lab and test roads, because those AV are dangerous crap and even worse then standard human driver!
If you think that pedestrians crossing the road, at night, pushing a bicycle with no reflectors, wearing dark clothing, on a four-lane open highway, not on a crosswalk, is not an edge case, then I would like you to tell me what is!

ETA: If people are looking for a reason why she was not detected, maybe its because she wasn't supposed to be... a bike presenting a side on view in the inside lane could have been a car... a normal occurrence; that lane is supposed to have cars in it. Of course, it still should have been detected if it was swerving into the lane, but that would be a lot harder to detect than a pedestrian walking in from the wrong side of the road.
__________________
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; 25th March 2018 at 11:58 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 26th March 2018, 01:54 AM   #271
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,604
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you think that pedestrians crossing the road, at night, pushing a bicycle with no reflectors, wearing dark clothing, on a four-lane open highway, not on a crosswalk, is not an edge case, then I would like you to tell me what is!
Because it's an example of a fundamental case? A substantial object moving into the car's path is something that should be considered as an ever-present possibility, and one that could happen at any time. You don't switch off monitoring for such things just because you're on a wide road at night and nobody is specifically expecting a cyclist in dark clothes etc...
__________________
"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
Old 26th March 2018, 02:16 AM   #272
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Because it's an example of a fundamental case? A substantial object moving into the car's path is something that should be considered as an ever-present possibility, and one that could happen at any time. You don't switch off monitoring for such things just because you're on a wide road at night and nobody is specifically expecting a cyclist in dark clothes etc...
That is not what I am arguing.

Vehicles suddenly changing lanes, cars blowing through red lights or stop signs and cars crossing centrelines into oncoming traffic would be fundmental cases. A pedestrian crossing the road, at night, pushing a bicycle with no reflectors, wearing dark clothing, on a four-lane open highway, not on a crosswalk and crossing into your path from the left (in right-drive countries) is rare. IMO, that combination, its an outlier case, not a fundamental or common one.
__________________
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
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 26th March 2018, 02:16 AM   #273
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,533
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
ETA: If people are looking for a reason why she was not detected, maybe its because she wasn't supposed to be... a bike presenting a side on view in the inside lane could have been a car... a normal occurrence; that lane is supposed to have cars in it.
That's a good point. I'd been assuming that the car didn't brake because it failed to detect the woman pushing her bike at all, which was puzzling. Detecting and misidentifying her as a car in the overtaking lane going in the same direction, and hence not a reason to take evasive action, does seem more likely.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 26th March 2018, 03:19 AM   #274
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Because it's an example of a fundamental case? A substantial object moving into the car's path is something that should be considered as an ever-present possibility, and one that could happen at any time. You don't switch off monitoring for such things just because you're on a wide road at night and nobody is specifically expecting a cyclist in dark clothes etc...
Everybody seems to be looking at this at quite a high level. Certainly any self drive car needs to be able to detect people in its path regardless of whether it is reasonable for them to be there. However, it can't directly detect people, so its not that easy. It has a bunch of inputs which may sometimes contradict each other and will contain varying degrees of noise. They can't solve the problem by just turning the sensitivity way up, or they would emergency break every time a gust of wind blew leaves into the road. It is clearly the case that even Uber detects objects in their path most of the time, or all their cars would be off the road due to accidents already. Hence, this is an edge case where the algorithm failed to appropriately handle some unusual set of inputs. The fact that the outcome was really bad does not make it not an edge case. I don't see how one could reasonably expect them to catch all the ways these systems could fail horribly on a test track.

Planes fail horribly sometimes despite huge amounts of testing, and the fact that not crashing into the ground at high speed or breaking up in the air being obvious things that we don't want to happen.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
shuttlt 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 26th March 2018, 03:36 AM   #275
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,604
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That is not what I am arguing.

Vehicles suddenly changing lanes, cars blowing through red lights or stop signs and cars crossing centrelines into oncoming traffic would be fundmental cases. A pedestrian crossing the road, at night, pushing a bicycle with no reflectors, wearing dark clothing, on a four-lane open highway, not on a crosswalk and crossing into your path from the left (in right-drive countries) is rare. IMO, that combination, its an outlier case, not a fundamental or common one.
Then we disagree profoundly on how these cars should evaluate danger. My pov is that "a substantial thing approaching the path of the car" is something very high on the very first list of potential dangers that the programmers would have considered. Meanwhile there's nothing to be gained by discounting such a possibility based on the particular road and time of day. Software doesn't need to take a break.
__________________
"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
Old 26th March 2018, 03:42 AM   #276
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Then we disagree profoundly on how these cars should evaluate danger. My pov is that "a substantial thing approaching the path of the car" is something very high on the very first list of potential dangers that the programmers would have considered. Meanwhile there's nothing to be gained by discounting such a possibility based on the particular road and time of day. Software doesn't need to take a break.
We don't know that it detected a substantial thing approaching the path of the car.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
shuttlt 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 26th March 2018, 03:48 AM   #277
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,604
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
We don't know that it detected a substantial thing approaching the path of the car.
True, but we know that it damn well should have.
__________________
"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
Old 26th March 2018, 03:49 AM   #278
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
We don't know that it detected a substantial thing approaching the path of the car.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
Even if it did, unless we want the car to do an emergency stop every time a bird, or some rubbish drifts into its lane then the problem of appropriately classifying and handling detected objects isn't trivial.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
shuttlt 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 26th March 2018, 04:17 AM   #279
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,886
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
The next one could be a kid.
You were doing so well before this point.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 26th March 2018, 04:20 AM   #280
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,886
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"I'm not against tech, I just want to make sure it's safe enough" is always the battlecry of anti-tech people.

"Safe enough" is an open ended standard you can keep going forever.
I think it's safe to say that if a human driver doesn't even _try_ to avoid the pedestrian, he doesn't deserve to be on the road. A robot driver that does the same needs to be improved upon.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 12:47 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.