A Tragic Loss • Hacker News Board

Re: A Tragic Loss

#441

Post by chdir » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:01 AM UTC

If autonomous cars can lead to a significant reduction in road fatalities, then we aren't we in the right direction ?

I was hoping that the discussion here would consider the outcome of autonomous vs non-autonomous cars in totality instead of having an emotionally charged outburst against a big corporation.

Yes, maybe this is not the right time for Tesla to go all defensive but that's expected & that's how almost any company would respond. Why waste all the energy discussing that only.

Yes, people will get careless with autonomous cars, but don't they do it with regular cars too ? Cellphone, coffee, makeup, etc. So I disagree that autonomous cars have to be perfect.

An automobile is like a weapon in the driver's hand. If they aren't careful, they can hurt someone including themselves. Autonomous systems are there to help reduce the chances of mundane accidents due to the driver being distracted or less than capable. They are not their to replace a human yet.

My point of view is that if a human can't avoid a collision, don't expect the autonomous system to fill the gap. It's their to catch "some" of the errors that a human might make, it's not a foolproof safety net.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#442

Post by userbinator » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:05 AM UTC

neurotech1 wrote: post #207

jacquesm wrote: post #94

This is why driving AI is 'all or nothing' for me. Assisted systems will lead to drivers paying less attention as the systems get better. The figures quoted by Tesla seem impressive but you have to assume the majority of the drivers is still paying attention all the time . As auto-pilots get better you'll see them paying attention less and then the accident rate will go up, not down for a while at least until the bug…

In the aviation community, there is the major concerns over pilots becoming over-reliant cockpit automation instead of flying the jet. Asiana 214 [0] is a classic example of crashing a perfectly good airliner into a seawall on landing. In the Boeing 777, one example of the (auto)pilot interface showing safety critical information is the stall speed indication on the cockpit display [1], warning the pilot if they are…

In aviation, autopilots became successful because the human-machine handoff latency required is relatively large --- despite how fast planes fly, the separation between them and other objects is large and there is usually still time (seconds) to react when the autopilot decides it can't do the job ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XxEFFX586k )

On the road, where relative separation is much less (and there's even been talk of how self-driving cars can reduce following distances significantly, which just scares me more), the driver might not have even a second to react when he/she needs to take over from the autopilot.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#443

Post by jsprogrammer » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:08 AM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #430

jsprogrammer wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An engineer should know nothing by instinct. Adding redundancy was incorrect. Redundancy should be inherent to the design. If one must be added, the design is already a failure. Redundancy does not mean adding a new component, but maintaining operation under component failure. For example, if the engines fail, it should still be possible to make a controlled landing.

If you can build an airliner with 100% failsafe redundancies at a cost that makes you competitive with the incumbants I'll be the first to buy a ticket. Heck, I'll be the first to invest.

Nothing is 100% failsafe. Machines can be designed that will not enter known failure modes, given they are operating in within known conditions. If such a machine is detected to be able to enter a failure mode in expected coming conditions, it should not be used commercially.

Cf. The grounding of all Boeing 787s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_batter...

Re: A Tragic Loss

#444

Post by archagon » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #421

archagon wrote: post #221

This is on the road to being off topic, but still relevant given some of the commentary in this thread: It makes me a bit sad that the political zeitgeist in the tech community is leaning towards "acceptable losses" when it comes to accidents in automated cars, to the point of pre-emptively expressing disdain at ordinary people reacting negatively to such news. I sense it's going to become harder and harder for us to…

I still don't find your perspective persuasive because I don't see why I'm not any more of an individual at risk when another human hits me, and society won't hold that human liable due to absence of mens rea. Many people get hurt or killed in a situation with no criminal element. I don't see how it's any more or less personal if I'm maimed or killed by a machine versus a bounded human mind. I also don't care to blam…

I agree that many people would prefer living in more utilitarian society where machines have a hand in making these kinds of decisions. "Abstracting out" the damage caused by driving strictly into the domain of algorithms is surely a tempting prospect for the tech-minded, especially given that human behavior is so unpredictable and uncorrectable. But this shift into the world of semi-intelligent machines would affect all people, not just the drivers, and so it should be decided on collectively. Instead, it's at great risk of being fast-tracked onto the the rest of society by companies like Tesla — irresponsibly, at that.

And this is all before even questioning the base premise — that self-driving cars will inherently be better than human drivers. Despite their many miles on the road, their combined experience pales compared to human-driven miles, especially in edge cases and harsh weather conditions. There are huge risks in introducing this technology prematurely.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#445

Post by mjevans » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

chdir wrote: post #441

If autonomous cars can lead to a significant reduction in road fatalities, then we aren't we in the right direction ? I was hoping that the discussion here would consider the outcome of autonomous vs non-autonomous cars in totality instead of having an emotionally charged outburst against a big corporation. Yes, maybe this is not the right time for Tesla to go all defensive but that's expected & that's how almost any…

I disagree. We design automation in an attempt to do things, more easily, better, faster, or longer than humanly possible.

I do believe that Tesla's cars are likely an aid to, and in many cases better than, a human driver.

I think, however, that a more full sensor package will be desired: one that can detect changes at multiple elevations and in many directions. One that is more than humanly ability offers.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#446

Post by userbinator » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

chdir wrote: post #441

If autonomous cars can lead to a significant reduction in road fatalities, then we aren't we in the right direction ? I was hoping that the discussion here would consider the outcome of autonomous vs non-autonomous cars in totality instead of having an emotionally charged outburst against a big corporation. Yes, maybe this is not the right time for Tesla to go all defensive but that's expected & that's how almost any…

Yes, people will get careless with autonomous cars, but don't they do it with regular cars too ? Cellphone, coffee, makeup, etc. So I disagree that autonomous cars have to be perfect.

Yes they do, but trying to do something else while driving is additional cognitive load --- they still have to be paying some attention to driving, whereas "it just drives itself" automation allows a complete diversion of attention. In other words, the automation encourages carelessness.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#447

Post by chdir » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:19 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #446

chdir wrote: post #441

If autonomous cars can lead to a significant reduction in road fatalities, then we aren't we in the right direction ? I was hoping that the discussion here would consider the outcome of autonomous vs non-autonomous cars in totality instead of having an emotionally charged outburst against a big corporation. Yes, maybe this is not the right time for Tesla to go all defensive but that's expected & that's how almost any…

Yes, people will get careless with autonomous cars, but don't they do it with regular cars too ? Cellphone, coffee, makeup, etc. So I disagree that autonomous cars have to be perfect. Yes they do, but trying to do something else while driving is additional cognitive load --- they still have to be paying some attention to driving, whereas "it just drives itself" automation allows a complete diversion of attention. In…

> automation encourages carelessness

Is that a hypothesis or are there statistics on accidents & fatalities to back it up. Curious, not denying what you say. I don't have statistics either.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#448

Post by mjevans » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:20 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #442

neurotech1 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the aviation community, there is the major concerns over pilots becoming over-reliant cockpit automation instead of flying the jet. Asiana 214 [0] is a classic example of crashing a perfectly good airliner into a seawall on landing. In the Boeing 777, one example of the (auto)pilot interface showing safety critical information is the stall speed indication on the cockpit display [1], warning the pilot if they are…

In aviation, autopilots became successful because the human-machine handoff latency required is relatively large --- despite how fast planes fly, the separation between them and other objects is large and there is usually still time (seconds) to react when the autopilot decides it can't do the job ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XxEFFX586k ) On the road, where relative separation is much less (and there's even bee…

In other words:

The driver might have needed to react before the auto-pilot realized it needed to react (let along could humanly respond).

There are two things that I take away from this.

* Auto-pilot should probably just keep going (or bring to a as controlled stop as possible).

* It should also collect more data to hopefully warn the driver more in advance.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#449

Post by fucking_tragedy » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:25 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #423

ams6110 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had posted the same comment before I saw this one (I deleted mine). I would assume that the higher-end GM cars do have an automatic braking collision avoidance system by now, since that's a pretty standard feature above a certain price point. And I would assume it's not foolproof either, but at least it doesn't lead the driver to think he can take his hands off the wheel and not pay attention to what's happening on…

> at least it doesn't lead the driver to think he can take his hands off the wheel and not pay attention Tesla reiterates every time and makes you confirm you understand that this is not the case. If the driver did it, that's completely on them being irresponsible.

It's called Autopilot™.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#450

Post by mjevans » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 5:35 AM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #249

archagon wrote: post #221

This is on the road to being off topic, but still relevant given some of the commentary in this thread: It makes me a bit sad that the political zeitgeist in the tech community is leaning towards "acceptable losses" when it comes to accidents in automated cars, to the point of pre-emptively expressing disdain at ordinary people reacting negatively to such news. I sense it's going to become harder and harder for us to…

> It makes me a bit sad that the political zeitgeist in the tech community is leaning towards "acceptable losses" when it comes to accidents in automated cars Yes, this is another thing that makes me so angry about this situation. Back in the day, I worked on a project to give autonomy to power wheelchair systems. In order to get it to market, we had to go through FDA approval, which involved testing the equipment in…

From the description of this accident it sounds as if the Tesla was traveling normally down a lane, and happened to cross UNDER a vehicle which was bisecting that lane (the precise conditions were not clear from my reading; it could be that the trailer was at a crossroads of somekind, or that it was veering across said lane).

In the case of any normal crossing or intersection the driver should have taken over manual control. In the case of a sudden deviation of other vehicles planned paths, I have doubts the driver could have reacted in a timely and safe manor, even without the automation. Though an even more complete sensor system may have allowed the automation to detect and react faster than a human could.