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

Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#31

Post by snowwrestler »

zhanwei wrote: post #9

He is comparing situations where human decision makers are highly trained professionals such as astronauts and passenger plane pilot to daily driving situations where the average human decision maker is more likely to be an idiot(people switch off while driving) distracted by his smartphone.

Even a "switched off" human is benefiting from the supervision of a brain that is far more complex than any computer yet constructed, and has, on average, been trained in driving by decades of experience, and in recognizing patterns of movement by millions of years of evolution.

Meanwhile, computers in cars today cannot even reliably translate human throttle inputs into throttle actuations (see: Toyota).

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#32

Post by krapp »

Zikes wrote: post #3

I must be missing something, because it seems like Mr. Mindell is saying cars shouldn't be fully driverless because they can't be. He cites numerous examples of other promised automation technologies that seem to have become a pipe dream over the past several decades. Except, Google's driverless cars have now logged over a million fully automated miles. It is a proven technology. These aren't exploratory machines goi…

> they're out there on the road doing what we've all been doing for a hundred years already.

Unless we've been driving in the rain. Or with the sun in our eyes. Or somewhere besides California.

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#33

Post by snowwrestler »

jessaustin wrote: post #4
quanticle wrote: post #2

The thing that worries me about semi-autonomous cars is that we might end up in the same place we've ended up with aircraft. Aircraft are sufficiently autonomous in nominal conditions that pilot skills atrophy, and then when the plane encounters adverse conditions, these de-skilled pilots simply do not respond correctly to the problem, crashing the plane. Specifically, I'm thinking of something like Air France Flight…

This danger will be avoided in automobiles by making human control impossible as soon as that makes any sense. There will be no steering wheel, the front seat will face backwards to facilitate conversation, and accident rates will plummet. The thing that robocars can do, which roboplanes cannot, is slow down or stop completely when faced with vexing situations.

So how is the vexing situation resolved? Either the onboard computer must be able to manage 100% of all situations, or the human driver must have an option to take control to resolve it themselves.

You can't have a car that makes human control impossible, and then gets itself into vexing situations. You'll be stuck there forever.

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#34

Post by jfoutz »

quanticle wrote: post #10
jfoutz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the pilots got confused because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes#Alternate... not, particularly, because of de-skilling. I'm going to use a stupid metaphor, that's perhaps ton totally apt. In that case it's kind of like reversing the gas and break pedals. 99.9% of the time, practically all your time behind the wheel the car behaves one way, but in this one special circumstance, the 'nor…

While the confusion over normal mode and alternate mode did play a role in the crash, the BEA report investigating the crash found the following six proximate causes [1]: - temporary inconsistency between the measured speeds, likely as a result of the obstruction of the pitot tubes by ice crystals, causing autopilot disconnection and reconfiguration to alternate law; - the crew made inappropriate control inputs that…

Yeah, but there's some other interesting stuff on that page, like "... difficulty in identifying and understanding the implications of the switch to alternate law, which does not protect the angle of attack."

99.9% of the time it works one way, you can't be steep enough to stall, then you change the rules on the guys. Yes, the pilots fucked up. But there's pretty broad criticism of the HCI. The pilots are professionals and should know better, but when you swap the gas and the brake, it's a rare driver that can cope with that. Sure, set a high bar for professionals, but leave out the arbitrary complexity.

Anywho, with regard to self driving cars, i think passive drivers will just give up and pull over when the autopilot can't handle the situation. Aggressive drivers will be driving manually all the time anyway. Of course there are exceptions, but i'd bet that's how it breaks out 95% of the time in practice.

edit

This is sorta like an anti-lock brake system that only works above 32 degrees fahrenheit. Just because there might be ice, we're going to make your brakes worse even when there is no ice.

I think i get your point about de-skilling. They'll need to be very careful of stuff that works sometimes

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#35

Post by thadjo »

Mindel isn't saying full automation can't or shouldn't happen for cars. His point is empirical and cautionary: usually when we get excited about automating X, it turns out that X is better with some human supervision. It's not really a contentious claim. I think many proponents of self-driving cars would be ok with some human input – steering wheels, changing routes, feedback on driving performance, etc

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#36

Post by sandworm101 »

nemothekid wrote: post #30
sandworm101 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hands off the wheel does not mean not in control if you can put those hands back on the wheel instantly. Take the hands off the wheel, get in the back seat, and take a nap. That's what I would call a driverless car. The "hands not on wheel" argument has been made by many a defendant. Courts don't buy it anymore. If you are in the driver seat, inches from the controls, then you are responsible for the motion of the ve…

This is an incredibly pedantic definition and has nothing to do with what Google is doing. Google's car has logged driverless hours - despite where a human can be sitting. Are you seriously implying that a human sitting in the driver seat is controlling the car without touching it? If its not driverless, how is the car navigating? Through psychic powers?

They are "driverless" from an internal software or technology perspective. The car is making itself move. But they are not driverless from an external/legal view. There is still a person in there that is held responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. When things go wrong, that person will still be answerable a the driver.

I seriously doubt Google is sending out "drivers" without proper licenses. Equally, I cannot imagine any court dismissing a traffic ticket on the basis that the car, the robot, was the one committing the crime.

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#37

Post by Tideflat »

andrewray wrote: post #23

Cars seem fundamentally different than his other examples: Spacecraft, underwater vehicles, and airplanes. The importance difference is cars have a clear, visual grid of where they can travel and where they cannot travel. Painted lines on the road and navigational signs provide a construct of the environment around them. Maybe the closest comparison is subway / metro rails. There are already many fully automated subw…

In Northern climes, the painted lines on the road are often covered by snow.

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#38

Post by userbinator »

thadjo wrote: post #35

Mindel isn't saying full automation can't or shouldn't happen for cars. His point is empirical and cautionary: usually when we get excited about automating X, it turns out that X is better with some human supervision. It's not really a contentious claim. I think many proponents of self-driving cars would be ok with some human input – steering wheels, changing routes, feedback on driving performance, etc

I think many proponents of self-driving cars would be ok with some human input – steering wheels, changing routes, feedback on driving performance, etc

AKA "cruise control"...?

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#39

Post by bloaf »

snowwrestler wrote: post #33
jessaustin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This danger will be avoided in automobiles by making human control impossible as soon as that makes any sense. There will be no steering wheel, the front seat will face backwards to facilitate conversation, and accident rates will plummet. The thing that robocars can do, which roboplanes cannot, is slow down or stop completely when faced with vexing situations.

So how is the vexing situation resolved? Either the onboard computer must be able to manage 100% of all situations, or the human driver must have an option to take control to resolve it themselves. You can't have a car that makes human control impossible, and then gets itself into vexing situations. You'll be stuck there forever.

Is it impossible for a human to get a car permanently stuck?

*edit: put another way, is it possible for a human driver to extricate a car from any situation?

Re: Should cars be fully driverless? No, says an MIT engineer and historian

#40

Post by aclissold »

On the topic of boredom and attention lapses while driving, I wonder if it would actually be made safer by being made more difficult, in contrast to the never-ending search for ease of use. Something that's difficult, mentally stimulating, and requires actual skill like a video game or musical instrument. Would there be more or less mistakes (collisions) if people were forced to be engaged 100% of the time in order to operate the vehicle?

I'm not saying it's a good idea, because only a subset of people would be capable of it, but it's interesting to think about!

Post reply on HN