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

Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#71

Post by Fricken »

CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

GM, Ford, Waymo, Uber, Toyota, Apple, Volvo and Zoox have all opted to skip SEO levels 2 and 3, due to overtrust and the handoff problem respectively. These are most of the biggest players. The Germans appear to be largely in a state of clusterfuck, Mobileye is making serious amendments to their strategy, and that pretty much leaves Tesla, who are already in too deep with the incremental approach to back out now.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#72

Post by CPLX »

random_upvoter wrote: post #66
aetherson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid. A drunk driver, while impaired, retains a level of understanding of the situation but a program has nothing to fall back on. I suspect that accidents with automated driving, while rare, will tend to be more severe. Think train wrecks.

> When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid.

Well said.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#73

Post by 3chelon »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #17
gambiting wrote: post #3

"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…

Driving 100 mph is also a fun recreational activity that's mostly banned because it's dangerous. If you want to drive 100mph, you need to either go to a track or go to the Autobahn. In the future, I imagine that manually driving will be similarly constrained.

Once the technology is good enough, there is no theoretical reason for a speed limit. I'm looking forward to sitting in the auto-lane cutting code at 200mph while the petrol-heads are doing a thrilling 70 in the manual lane beside me!

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#74

Post by cr0sh »

nickez wrote: post #39
losteverything wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom. We control our freedom. Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them. But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no…

> Cars == freedom That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.

While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified?

One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make.

In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping.

Travelling to another state could easily be hundreds of miles and hours of travel. It would comparable to driving between countries in Europe (assuming a similar "interstate" freeway system).

We want that freedom so that we can live where we want to live, shop where we want to shop, play where we want to play, and work where we want to work - and not have that dictated to us based on economic situation, geographic location, etc. If we want to live in the slums, and commute to the "rich part of town" to work (or vice-versa!) - even if the distance is fairly large - we want that kind of choice.

One could argue about other forms of transportation - but those come with costs, and in the US we don't have great public transportation - and ultimately, you are chained to the decisions and whims of the transportation and other people using it; you can't decide where and when to go, and when to stop, or when to be picked up...

So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? I can understand economic freedom (it's expensive to own a car - and even more so if you have to pay to store or park it), and I can understand the licensing argument - but in general, being limited to the alternative options seems to me to be less freedom, not more.

I'm obviously missing something...

/also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud - can't do that without a vehicle (and currently, you can't do it with anything not IC powered that is available to consumers at a decent price - and I don't know if an autonomous ORV would be fun or not - but I can't wait for 4wd electrics that can be lifted and modded with big 44" mudders).

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#75

Post by aetherson »

JamesBarney wrote: post #64
aetherson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

Yes. Lets assume a. 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven as an average driver[0] b. .5 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as robo driver c. .25 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as 20-70 sober well rested driver I'm 31yr old male so I have an average life expectancy of 47 more years. That means I lose about .5/100 million * 47 yrs * 365days * 24hrs * 60mins * 60s = 7.4 seconds life lost per mile in robo…

This is a well-reasoned answer, but probably not the same trade-off that most people would make. For example, if a car was twice as bad as the average driver (2 fatalities per 100 million miles), then you'd say 29.6 seconds per mile -- maybe something you wouldn't do at freeway speeds, but you would do at city street speeds.

But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as an average human driver (including drunks and so forth). Which suggests that most people have a different approach to this question.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#76

Post by ctdonath »

nickez wrote: post #39
losteverything wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom. We control our freedom. Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them. But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no…

> Cars == freedom That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.

Understood; different people/cultures hold different axioms for "freedom". This often confuses people.

As an old-values American, self-sufficiency is paramount: freedom is the ability to do what/when I want, with practically no reliance on others; to rely on others (say, for transportation) requires their ability/consent, and should that be denied for any reason then my freedom is limited without my choice. That includes the ability to travel 1000 miles on a moment's notice (hindered only by energy storage limits).

While I understand the "freedom" of not having to own & maintain things ("just get on the train! not beholden to servicing a vehicle"), it is those things that extend my abilities. Living out of a backpack, renting what I need when I want it, is certainly desirable - but relies heavily on the consent & capability of others to provide on request.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#77

Post by sandworm101 »

CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

And that transition has been repeatedly tried, and abandoned, in less-demanding autopilot fields. Trains, planes and ships are all less computationaly difficult yet attempts to remove drivers from the equation have come to nothing. If it isnt 100% than it just isnt acceptable.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#78

Post by ghaff »

bpyne wrote: post #56
CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

"It's a fixture of complex adaptive systems analysis that one encounters scenarios where having anything short of perfection is just as good as useless." Great point. It's one that not enough people are emphasizing. I need to be physically engaged in the driving experience or I won't be attentive in the least. It's been a trait since childhood that my mental state is tied to physical activity. A car that keeps me phy…

It's not just you. It's a well-researched phenomenon.

I do think there's the potential to enable full autonomy in well-defined use cases while requiring manual control elsewhere. (Still problematic--how do you enforce?)

But the idea that a driver can take control on short notice from an automated system is a non-starter. Maybe you can assume there's an adult with supervisory control in the vehicle but you certainly can't assume they're prepared to deal with urgent emergencies.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#79

Post by aetherson »

Nadya wrote: post #60
Retric wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.

"Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident". For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether. Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't nec…

This is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well.

So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#80

Post by apendleton »

jessriedel wrote: post #27
apendleton wrote: post #5

PSA: this is largely a summary of a video, and that's mentioned at the top of the article but the link isn't provided until the end. It's here: http://a16z.com/2017/01/06/selfdriving-cars-frank-chen/

Does the article add anything, or at least provide a compact summary? Does anyone know where the video can be downloaded?

Doesn't add too much, but does summarize compactly.

Looks like it's hosted on Vimeo... so I don't think so, at least without hackery.

Post reply on HN