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

Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#21

Post by [deleted] »

amaranth wrote: post #12
mulmen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If it is not proven the driver was negligent why fire this individual? Presumably this individual has a lot of experience and domain knowledge in testing self driving cars so replacing them with someone else may not be an improvement. If they did make a mistake that got someone killed that could change things but I would hope we wait to find out if the driver was actually at fault.

I don't think Uber's safety drivers have any domain knowledge. The law says you need bodies in seats so Uber is paying as little as possible to put bodies in seats. They aren't engineers or professional (as in stunt/trick/etc) drivers.

[deleted]

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#23

Post by mulmen »

amaranth wrote: post #12
mulmen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If it is not proven the driver was negligent why fire this individual? Presumably this individual has a lot of experience and domain knowledge in testing self driving cars so replacing them with someone else may not be an improvement. If they did make a mistake that got someone killed that could change things but I would hope we wait to find out if the driver was actually at fault.

I don't think Uber's safety drivers have any domain knowledge. The law says you need bodies in seats so Uber is paying as little as possible to put bodies in seats. They aren't engineers or professional (as in stunt/trick/etc) drivers.

I’m not sure stunt or trick drivers are the best choice anyway but you make a good point. Do we know this individual’s qualifications or are we just guessing at Uber’s standards?

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#24

Post by natch »

I'd like to see a law that says: to obtain certification to operate a self-driving car on a roadway, an organization must agree to:

1) Conform to a standard set of protocols for how sensors provide data to a self-driving software system.

2) Log data in a form that could be submitted to any conforming self-driving software system, to obtain results from that system reporting what the system would do given these inputs.

With this in place, it would be easy to do after-the-fact comparisons of data leading up to incidents, and learn from the differences in results between systems.

It could be taken a step further if the car makers would also share data on near misses, which could uncover cases where other car makers' systems did not handle the situation as well.

Even if the sensors are different, I suspect some good mileage could be gotten out of this. The fact that learning opportunities are not perfect, is not always a good reason to pass them up.

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#25

Post by mulmen »

devrelm wrote: post #13
mulmen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If it is not proven the driver was negligent why fire this individual? Presumably this individual has a lot of experience and domain knowledge in testing self driving cars so replacing them with someone else may not be an improvement. If they did make a mistake that got someone killed that could change things but I would hope we wait to find out if the driver was actually at fault.

They released inward-facing video of the safety driver shortly after the incident. The driver was staring at her phone in her lap with only occasional glances at the road every 5 seconds or so. I would call that pretty negligent.

That certainly doesn’t sound good. Is there footage of the driver at the time of the collision?

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#26

Post by InclinedPlane »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #5

Has anyone been able to even remotely explain why the LIDAR system wasn't going nuts? I saw the "it was dark" nonsense, but I assume this vehicle had laser and IR right? The camera footage was released, I'd like to see the lidar representation.

A couple possibilities here. The LIDAR was turned off. Or the system just blatantly failed to categorize the pedestrian properly. Given that she was walking a bike that had bags on the handlebars this is my guess, the system just choked on that and was too stupid to brake for any object in the road that it might hit.

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#27

Post by dclowd9901 »

blensor wrote: post #8

If the technology were as undeterministic as this post makes it seem to be, there should not be any self driving car allowed even under the best conditions. I fully agree that an AI can be fooled, but that is high level logic (path planing), the system should be designed to have a fallback that does emergency braking if all else fails. There simply is a point where the high-level AI does not matter any more. And that…

Right; if we want to compare it to ourselves, maybe the various minds that control our impulses. We can hold a knife over our finger with our high level cognitive mind, but (hopefully) our low level brain will prevent us from bringing it down and chopping our finger off, even if we _really really_ wanted to do it.

I know that's sort of a weird example, but I think it's really illustrative of a dual/multiple mind scenario playing out in our own understanding.

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#28

Post by blensor »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #27
blensor wrote: post #8

If the technology were as undeterministic as this post makes it seem to be, there should not be any self driving car allowed even under the best conditions. I fully agree that an AI can be fooled, but that is high level logic (path planing), the system should be designed to have a fallback that does emergency braking if all else fails. There simply is a point where the high-level AI does not matter any more. And that…

Right; if we want to compare it to ourselves, maybe the various minds that control our impulses. We can hold a knife over our finger with our high level cognitive mind, but (hopefully) our low level brain will prevent us from bringing it down and chopping our finger off, even if we _really really_ wanted to do it. I know that's sort of a weird example, but I think it's really illustrative of a dual/multiple mind scen…

Or reflex.

We act on an input on a lower cognitive level first before a higher level function even has the chance to intervene.

If someone is throwing a ball at my face, my body hopefully reacts before my higher level functions had the chance to evaluate if the ball will really hit the face and if I may look silly if I wave my hands in the air while no actual danger exists. Because it actually IS on a trajectory to my face the benefit far outweigh the risk of looking silly

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#29

Post by lighthazard »

natch wrote: post #24

I'd like to see a law that says: to obtain certification to operate a self-driving car on a roadway, an organization must agree to: 1) Conform to a standard set of protocols for how sensors provide data to a self-driving software system. 2) Log data in a form that could be submitted to any conforming self-driving software system, to obtain results from that system reporting what the system would do given these inputs…

Perhaps some sort of logging standard that is enforced across all systems? A black box of some sort?

Re: Why collision avoidance is harder for an AI-based system

#30

Post by jessaustin »

mulmen wrote: post #9
decacorn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in response to that piece by Brad, I sincerely hope that the "safety" driver in the uber accident was fired.

Why? If it is not proven the driver was negligent why fire this individual? Presumably this individual has a lot of experience and domain knowledge in testing self driving cars so replacing them with someone else may not be an improvement. If they did make a mistake that got someone killed that could change things but I would hope we wait to find out if the driver was actually at fault.

Some sources mention a three-week training course. [0] It certainly costs some money to put an employee through such a course, but Uber have the deep pockets here. I'm not saying Ms. Vasquez should be fired before an investigation is complete, and she may be exonerated entirely, but presumably any investigation will take at least three weeks?

[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5532129/Uber-pilot-d...

Post reply on HN