Live data from Hacker News

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

news.mit.edu

81–90 of 107 posts

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

#81
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).

Let's be fair. Not much of our millions of years of evolution has fully prepared us to tackle the slew of random events and conditions the daily driver has to face. And while our hundreds of thousands of years of tool use has certainly managed to have some influence on our genome we're still barely equipped to operate tools that increase our speed, strength, and carrying capacity by orders of magnitude. This is demonstrated every day by the astonishingly huge number of terrible accidents caused by these tools. Automobiles are responsible for perhaps the most (no doubt due to the vastly varying levels of skill and practice across their operators). Human decision making is simply not fast enough to handle all of the situations one can encounter while operating a motor vehicle and is certainly many times slower in any given situation than a highly optimized specialized system designed to solve that type of problem. The area where human brains currently have the advantage is in reacting to novel edge cases, but at that point providing adequate autonomous conveyance at safer-than-human accident rates becomes a numbers game.

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

#82
40 years of history showing failure, of course for most of that time they have had between a millionth and half the computing power we have today, and most of those years had now where near the capability of image sensors and other sensors. So how much weight should we really give history on something like this?

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

#83

40 years of history showing failure, of course for most of that time they have had between a millionth and half the computing power we have today, and most of those years had now where near the capability of image sensors and other sensors. So how much weight should we really give history on something like this?

I don't think they're arguing against automation, just that completely driverless vehicles won't be the optimum path. I think there will be some applications for which fully driverless vehicles will be fine, such as trucks transporting goods between loading bays and taxis collecting and dropping off at street addresses, and many others where some level of driver control will be useful.

Take their example of submarines. Fully autonomous submarines are completely possible, but what they point out is that some level of human control is more useful. They don't say why, but my guess is that this is because if the sub comes across something unusual that merits further investigation, humans are better at making that judgement call than a robot would. The same principle applies to the Mars rovers. But it also applies to plenty of routine uses of vehicles. Most of the time I'm driving from my house to a car park or street parking space and such journeys are probably completely automatable. But sometimes I arrive at e.g. a country fair and the parking is in a field and I know I want to park over there in a place which will soon be shaded by that tree, and not in a different place where it looks a bit muddy. At times like that I would want much more direct control over the vehicle and an automated system would not be able to make such decisions for me.

So while the article does a poor job saying so, I think the point is that 100% full driverless automation isn't the best answer in every situation. It might be a fine solution for many purposes, but not all. They're arguing against a (perhaps imagined and possibly straw man) maximalist automation position such as 'in 20 years time no cars will have manual controls'.

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

#84
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pulling over to the side of the road and putting your blinkers on is (almost) always an acceptable solution to an automotive error. Much harder to pull that off at 35,000 feet.

It's apples and oranges. Overshooting a turn at by a few seconds at 35,000 feet isn't the end of the world. Missing a turn in a car by even a quarter second means blood on the pavement.

> Missing a turn in a car by even a quarter second means blood on the pavement.

For a race driver perhaps. In traffic, you should keep a low enough speed and large enough distance, that 250 ms isn't a big deal.

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

#85

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…

I wouldn't worry too much - a lot of people already die on the roads in fully non-autonomous cars. We only need fewer people to die and it's worth it.

That's a rational approach, I'm not sure that many politicians think like that though.

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

#86
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Self-driving system that expects humans to take over randomly every now and then when something unexpected happens is much more dangerous than 100% self-driving or no self-driving - it exposes only the worst aspects of human driving while removing the best.

That's not completely clear. It depends entirely on how often the human is expected to take over

I think a more important factor is what situations the human is expected to take over.

Car gets stuck in a cul-de-sac and can't get out? Sure.

Impending collision in 2 seconds? Bad idea.

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as the self-driving car can cover every situation. What doesn't work is a system that expects the human to sit idle for hundreds of hours, then suddenly throws him/her the wheel and jumps ship. (Like the autodrive system in that simpsons episode where homer becomes a trucker.)

Yes, I think this is the key point. We've already seen [0] that even trained pilots have trouble when thrown into the middle of an emergency situation that they don't understand how they got into. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

Capt. Warren VanderBurgh has held a bunch of lectures, some of which exist on youtube[0], where he keeps stressing this specific issue. Highly interesting stuff, even for someone like me who's basically never been in an airplane.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10

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

#89
post #15

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.

Pulling over to the side of the road and putting your blinkers on is (almost) always an acceptable solution to an automotive error. Much harder to pull that off at 35,000 feet.

As long as you start having problems as high as 35,000 feet there are surprisingly many (although vomit-inducing) ways to deal with your problems by pure physics – i.e. as long as you can use some of your control surfaces, you have a reasonable chance of surviving.

The most important variables are velocity and lift vector. At 35,000 feet you have room to gain speed, and even just some of your control surfaces let you manipulate your lift vector in "unconventional" ways.

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

#90
post #6

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…

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…

When a voice in the cockpit repeats "stall. stall. stall. stall" it should be almost instinct to deal with it (whether that is forward yoke and near-0 g flying or rolling the lift vector to the side).

...unless you haven't had to fly the aircraft manually in a long time, so it's no longer instinct how it reacts to your inputs.

Post reply on HN