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

Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#121

Post by rhino369 »

jessriedel wrote: post #44
menacingly wrote: post #13

There was a time when I thought of regulations as progress killers, but I find myself shifting on that and getting nervous every time I hear about self-driving tech. It's great stuff, but I really do not want my family to be the brave eggs we had to crack to get to the omelet of a driverless future. I now _like_ that someone somewhere has a book listing chemicals that aren't allowed to be shipped on an airplane, and…

How so you feel about the 30k people who die each year the tech is delayed? Or do you really think the litigation system (where currently car manufactures almost are never liable) is properly tuned to minimize the time until that is achieved?

One way to roll out the tech is to do a hybrid system. Instead of selling self-driving tech as a convenience, the tech could be used to backup human driving. If the car sees I missed a stop sign, it could stop.

The goal shouldn't be a self driving car better than humans, but a self driving car better than a human driven car with automated safeguards.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#122

Post by jack9 »

sumeno wrote: post #47
smokeyj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why consumer/enterprise software is so lightly regulated is that very few people die when mistakes are made So few people die because computers are nearly unregulated and mass manufactured. Computers are cheap and safe because we allow the market to function.

Based on what? What deaths is the lack of regulation preventing? How would they be more dangerous if they were regulated?

There's lots of unintended, expected, negative outcomes from regulation.

The counter culture is unregulated experimentation like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298919/ An impetus to circumvent these regulations, in the extreme case to save lives (or just to be deviant). Regulation is like a wet blanket that can mold, but is effective at putting out a fire in a pinch, if it's big enough. Regulatory bodies never seem to have a path-to-dissolution process (the core of my problem with regulation) and are largely implemented in such a manner that they grow, self-perpetuate, morph and fester corruption for countless generations (e.g. FDA vs smoking tobacco).

Admittedly, I'm biased by my beliefs. Despite being heavily regulated, I think much of the cancer epidemic is caused by auto and oil/fuel, with some contribution by Monsanto Roundup-like products. The independent studies, in these heavily regulated industries, are consistently squelched, influenced, or made unavailable (trade secrets!).

Regulation is not a silver bullet.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#124

Post by smokeyj »

iainmerrick wrote: post #114
giobox wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both arguments are valid at the same time. People do absolutely shop around to skip waiting lines in state-run systems or save money by getting private treatment cheaper (UK citizens getting cheaper IVF in Spain is a common one I'm familiar with), but it's also sometimes true that certain treatments or medications that have been made available in one State that might not yet be certified for clinical use in another.…

That's true. I still don't see the connection to self-driving cars, though, and the idea that regulations "come at a cost and that at some point the costs can become prohibitive". GP is concerned about "regulatory capture", but the UK/Spain example you gave is about states being faster or slower to allow access to certain medical techniques, not corporations exploiting the system to lock in their market dominance.

The point about regulatory capture is secondary to the increase in cost. But there are patients going from high cost to low cost countries (linked below). There's also "big pharma" that is using IP regulations to limit what choices consumers have. I realize IP is another can of worms but it's still an example of regulation that is having the exact opposite of the desired outcome.

I would totally be for "sane" regulation, where autonomous driving components can be inexpensively tested and certified. I fear the more likely outcome will involve keeping costs prohibitively high. Considering how many people die on the road each year it would make sense for the state to sponsor a non-proprietary solution. Off the top of your head, in terms of the number of lives that can be saved per dollar - can you think of a better investment?

My feelings about autonomous cars is largely influenced by how terrible humans are at driving. At this point I'd rather trust a decent self-driving car than the average human.

*https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162941...

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#125

Post by timthelion »

Apocryphon wrote: post #119
timthelion wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm reading this correctly, those cars nave no "driver deaths" that means, that no one has died while driving those cars. This is a bit like a shotgun, which has potentially killed many people, but has not killed its owner.

Imagine if everyone was only allowed to drive those 9 car models.

I'm a pedestrian. I don't drive. I'm sure the cars don't have air bags on their bumpers.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#126

Post by ghaff »

xr4ti wrote: post #106
karmapolic wrote: post #70

how do you convince the midwest to use self driving tech? maybe start with nascar?

It's actually probably an easier sell outside of major population centers, especially if marketed as an advanced form of cruise control, which people already use on long, straight shots down country highways. I think people would be much more inclined to trust self driving tech in these scenarios than in congested traffic with complex intersections and people unexpectedly darting this way and that with little to no w…

That's more or less where the major auto manufacturers are all headed in the near- to mid-term. I realize a lot of people don't get excited by something that isn't on-demand door-to-door transportation. But it seems fairly obvious that full highway self-driving, especially limited access highway driving, is a much easier problem that is mostly solved today. It could end up being decades ahead of general-purpose everywhere/when autonomy. The only real question in my mind is when you transition from systems that are at least nominally assistive to hands off the wheel under certain conditions.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#127

Post by heedlessly2 »

karmapolic wrote: post #70

how do you convince the midwest to use self driving tech? maybe start with nascar?

why would the midwest specifically be a problem?

Outside the Bay, Ann Arbor & Detroit are the leading cities conducting research on autonomous vehicles thanks to the University of Michigan and the motor industry.

Besides most people have 45 min commutes. If your car came preheated each morning and drove you to work while you take a nap, then people would love it.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#128

Post by amdavidson »

agumonkey wrote: post #7

> region proposal network (RPN) sorry RPN is already taken !

Do you mean: Risk Priority Number? Reverse Polish Notation? Registered Psychiatric Nurse? Radio Philippines Network?

Surely you're aware that acronyms are sometimes domain specific and have multiple meanings.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#129

Post by leadingthenet »

MBCook wrote: post #50
leadingthenet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. Why is it not unreasonable?

Because you’re preventing 30k deaths that would have happened but causing 8k that wouldn’t... it seems fair for people to be mad about that 8k. Maybe we shouldn’t have rushed into things until that number was way smaller. ‘Diverless cars cause 30% of road fatalities’ is not a good headline.

It’s still a huge net reduction in deaths anyway you look at it, and there are huge gains in other areas (speed, covenience). I remain very unmoved by that argument.

I’d rather be hit by software than a human. At least I know we did as much as we could to alleviate the problem.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#130

Post by gowld »

muraiki wrote: post #117
menacingly wrote: post #13

There was a time when I thought of regulations as progress killers, but I find myself shifting on that and getting nervous every time I hear about self-driving tech. It's great stuff, but I really do not want my family to be the brave eggs we had to crack to get to the omelet of a driverless future. I now _like_ that someone somewhere has a book listing chemicals that aren't allowed to be shipped on an airplane, and…

One study by RAND says: "Autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and, under some scenarios, hundreds of billions of miles to create enough data to clearly demonstrate their safety... Under even the most-aggressive test driving assumptions, it would take existing fleets of autonomous vehicles tens and even hundreds of years to log sufficient miles to adequately assess the safety of th…

> including a little javascript widget

This is great. You can make any model say anything you want by tuning the parameters, so we needs researchers to stop forcing their preferred parameters, and let consumers check the robustness of the conclusions against ranges of parameters

> if somebody you loved was killed by a self-driving car, would you be comforted in knowing that the technology was in aggregate saving the lives of other people?

and if somebody you loved was killed by a human-driven car, would you be comforted in knowing that the technology was in aggregate was being held back for further testing?

Post reply on HN