Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#51

Post by ewzimm »

tclark225 wrote: post #33
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I definitely agree with this, but how could you specifically change the laws in this case such that they are still, by some measure, "fair" and "just"? Most people would probably agree that there is no reason to adhere to the letter of driving laws all the time. Speeding on an empty highway to get somewhere more quickly is mostly harmless. Running a red light in a dangerous neighborhood might be safer than waiting. T…

Computer programs are just human-dictated logic, so we can program the same decision-making processes into computers. A logical way to do this would be to train mapping computers the same way we do now, by allowing them to learn from human drivers. Just like how Google hires drivers with cameras to take pictures of streets, we can start with semi-autonomous cars which compare their programmed decisions with the decisions of the drivers and analyze differences. Afterward, they could ask the driver questions about why their behavior was different from what was expected in a programmatic way. Trends could be analyzed, and suggestions for altering the driving logic could be incorporated by programmers.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#52

Post by ihsw »

olalonde wrote: post #32
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but another alternative would be to write laws that are meant to be literal and enforced 100% of the time.

Human discretion is the bedrock of modern legal systems across the world -- at the risk of inappropriately quoting an aphorism on HN, there are exceptions to every rule.

Such exceptions are sometimes codified in law, but the idea is that our legal system is based on trust rather than technical correctness. Not only do we defer judgement to a jury of our peers rather than rigid and uncompromising interpretation of the law, but we trust that all levels of government (judicial, executive, legislative) will act in our best interest rather than the letter of the law.

What you're proposing would require broad-sweeping revisions to all manner of law.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#53

Post by duaneb »

tcdent wrote: post #50
duaneb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Self-driving cars in a line could detect and link up with each other, sharing sensor data on obstacles up ahead. In the end, this has the potential to safely reduce the gaps between cars at higher speeds and thus actually increase throughput, since the congestion issues with human drivers reacting separately would not apply. Isn't this already true to a certain extent with map software? It automatically directs you…

In my experience, including such prestigiously congested roadways as the 405, 101 and the 10, it has a lot to do with behavior (ie. the 'caterpillar' effect) than route. Rather, it's not physical space, but delays in processing speed adjustments. Distracted drivers accelerate and brake late, causing complete stops and quick acceleration to catch up.

Well, I can't speak for LA, but you have to acknowledge the role of having all those drivers on the road in the first place. Distributed better, jitter in driver behavior should tend towards having no effect with the distance between cars.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#54

Post by kerryfalk »

sschueller wrote: post #28

Two driverless cars are about to crash into each other on a tight mountain pass (maybe a bug that couldn't for see the accident). There are 3 possible outcomes: 1. Car 1 and Car 2 crash into each other killing all passengers. 2. Car 1 with 3 passengers drives of the cliff, car 2 with 1 passenger survives. 3. Car 2 with 1 passenger drives of the the cliff, car 1 with 3 passengers survives. The cars can communicate wit…

4. Apply brakes and enable safety features for impending collision, notify police of crash and location.

Why would it do anything else?

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#55

Post by pdq »

What happens with these driverless cars at four way stop signs? With humans, generally someone waves to the other driver signaling either to take right of way or that they will go first.

I presume the car doesn't understand hand gestures, so does it just start nudging into the intersection and stop if another car goes ahead?

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#56

Post by Retra »

danharaj wrote: post #48
Retra wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll want to encode enforcement rules in the laws themselves. Fundamentally, our laws really aren't constraints on what you can do, but guidelines for what you can enforce. You need to take it a step further and write down what you will enforce.

How do you guarantee the enforcement of the rules of enforcement? The fundamental problem is a vicious circle. The abstraction of law leaks.

Every abstraction leaks. That's why they are abstractions and not 'actuals.'

What you do is try it, and when it fails, you manage the failure and modify your system.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#57

Post by CWuestefeld »

jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying, but it's more complex than that.

When considering legislation and regulation, we willingly juggle a lot of cognitive dissonance. We seem to divide plan into (at least) its implementation and its intended effect, and consider each of those separately.

So I'm endlessly having conversations with friends of a different political stripe (which is easy, since everyone is of a different political stripe than me) that go something like: (note I'm not trying to trigger the implied political debate, this is for illustration only)

Friend: Financial system bailouts and systemic risks of "too big to fail" are terrible, and so we can't touch the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Me: I know that supporters of Dodd-Frank promised that it would put an end to TBTF. But the bill doesn't actually contain anything that does that. And in fact, since the industry has further consolidated since the bill was passed, it shows that whatever the intent, it isn't able to do its job successfully. If it can't do what you want it to do, why should we keep it?

Friend: But the banks are out of control, and we need to do something to prevent another collapse. We can't remove any regulation on them!

Maybe this is just the normal voter ignorance effect, but it seems that we assume people are making decisions based on actual understanding, but they're really just using oversimplified proxies instead, even when the inaccuracy of their proxy is pointed out to them. So a law that purports to fix X (whether X is healthcare or immigration or whatever) is a necessity, regardless of what the actual evidence, whether empirical or from reading the bill, tells us.

TL;DR: passing a law is intended to make us feel like we're doing the right thing, not necessarily to actually do it.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#58

Post by krapp »

olalonde wrote: post #32
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but another alternative would be to write laws that are meant to be literal and enforced 100% of the time.

That's basically a form of authoritarianism.

Also, this is essentially the underlying premise behind no-tolerance policies and three-strike drug laws with mandatory sentences, which view interpreting the law based on context as an impediment to enforcement, the solution for which is removing the ability of judges to do so. You can't have a just legal framework in which the only role of humans is to be punished or to exact punishment.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#59

Post by bholzer »

dman wrote: post #31
sschueller wrote: post #28

Two driverless cars are about to crash into each other on a tight mountain pass (maybe a bug that couldn't for see the accident). There are 3 possible outcomes: 1. Car 1 and Car 2 crash into each other killing all passengers. 2. Car 1 with 3 passengers drives of the cliff, car 2 with 1 passenger survives. 3. Car 2 with 1 passenger drives of the the cliff, car 1 with 3 passengers survives. The cars can communicate wit…

What do you think happens in this situation currently with human drivers? Are we holding machines to different standards than we hold each other?

I think the point being made is that being the master of your own destiny is one of the most valued ideas to most of us. Letting a computer decide whether I live or die is certainly a future I don't want
Post reply on HN