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

91–100 of 145 posts

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

#91

Post by taneq »

philwelch wrote: post #84
Animats wrote: post #65

This is looking at it all wrong. Watch Chris Urmson's video from SXSW on how Waymo does it. I've mentioned that before. You build a map of what's around the vehicle. Then you try to tag some obstacles to help predict their behavior. But the obstacle detection is geometric, and does not depend on the tagging, which uses machine learning. If there's an obstacle, the system doesn't hit it, even if it has no clue how to…

Devils advocate here, but what if a supposed “obstacle” is a plastic bag or a jet of steam coming out of a sewer grate?

Then you add special cases for steam, and plastic bags, and small fast moving animals that it's more dangerous to swerve around than hit. And then when some kid in a chicken costume runs out in front of the car, the car stops even though it can't identify exactly what it's looking at.

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

#92

Post by philwelch »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #87
philwelch wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devils advocate here, but what if a supposed “obstacle” is a plastic bag or a jet of steam coming out of a sewer grate?

Then you stop. Type 2 errors for cars are much less dangerous than Type 1 errors.

Unless it’s icy out, you have to swerve, or you’re being tailgated...but yes, stopping (or at least attempting to stop) is the best decision from a liability perspective.

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

#93

Post by andreyk »

This is shoddily written bunk. I would downvote if I could. Object detection from LIDAR/Radar data plus path planning is 'AI-based', and I guarantee you Waymo's systems (which are 'AI-based', though more old school and less ML based) would have done collision avoidance better than Uber.

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

#94

Post by andreyk »

wnoise wrote: post #42
martinrebane wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here :) I cannot answer for Uber, but the grand reason why we cannot put deterministic parts into the AI is the same as for humans - we do not control the internals of it, the complexity is too high. Although we can build systems that are composed of both AI and deterministic collision avoidance (as seen on new cars today). It is what I also suggested in the article.

Ah, then I should complain to you that "AI" is a broad suite of techniques and goals, rather than a specific black-box technique which has these flaws.

Yes - you really seem to be talking about Machine Learning (a subset of AI). And as another comment says 'This makes me want to pull my hair out. No reasonable system relies on AI [or ML] from top to bottom. Take this article with a grain of salt, it is attacking a straw-man.'

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

#95

Post by wirrbel »

I admit I stopped reading halfway through, but managed to scroll to the last paragraph.

This article is a dance through many important topics in a AV. Yet, it fails to actually answer the "Why collision avoidance is harder fo an AI-based system" question, really. Some arguments argue that systems with a smaller scope are easier, systems with a larger scope are more difficult, it brings on arguments about determinism in decision making. It brings on sensor sets, neither is really about AI or hand-crafted rules, but about problems inherent to robotics as a whole. Again, it is a fine example why the therm AI is useless and harmful for discussions, as it blurs what is talked about considerably.

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

#96

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

couchand wrote: post #81
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I mean, are we going to also remove ABS, because the AI could learn to modulate the brakes itself? This is the topic that I feel SDC enthusiasts forget. Not everything HAS TO BE AI. And we could maybe make steps towards SDC, not fantastic leaps that get people killed and really just get government involved where it doesn't need to be yet. We could replace the ABS/ESP/traction control systems in current vehicles with…

> Ideally, at first, we'd see components in consumer vehicles We do, though. Look at the cruise control or auto-park on a vehicle produced in the last few years. The totally autonomous car may make headlines, but these sorts of features will be what really make the technology ubiquitous.

I work on ECUs like this. High end stuff is doing computer vision, but 99% of what is on the road is pre-calibrated motor/solenoid control and that’s all.

Even adaptive cruise, steel camera object “detection” are just pretty simple systems. Almost nothing is doing even pieces of what the whole-package SDCs are.

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

#97

Post by adrianN »

amelius wrote: post #56
hangonhn wrote: post #44

Hang on. That argument makes no sense. We've had subsumption architecture for a long time now( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture ). Subsumption architecture puts some of the intelligence in the lower level systems. While the higher level controls can tell the lower level systems what it wants, it can't do things that the lower system determines is dangerous. So if a normal Mercedez has a collisio…

But braking on a highway might not be the best response in all circumstances.

When the collision detection system kicks in and determines that you're going to hit something in the next couple of seconds, then braking probably is the best option.

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

#98

Post by taneq »

philwelch wrote: post #92
dreamcompiler wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you stop. Type 2 errors for cars are much less dangerous than Type 1 errors.

Unless it’s icy out, you have to swerve, or you’re being tailgated...but yes, stopping (or at least attempting to stop) is the best decision from a liability perspective.

Well that's when you're grateful that along with your forward collision prevention, your car's ABS and electronic stability control systems are also still enabled.

As for tailgating, this seems to be a problem with U.S. attitudes, not vehicle mechanics. Stop making it acceptable to tailgate! If you're close enough to the vehicle in front of you that any significant braking on its part will cause you to hit it you are too close and it's your fault if you hit it.

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

#99

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

justin66 wrote: post #33
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.

What makes you think it wasn't? You're making some assumptions about which of the many systems failed, I think.

You know what makes me thing the LIDAR wasn’t working, the part about the dead woman.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

pj_mukh wrote: post #79
hangonhn wrote: post #44

Hang on. That argument makes no sense. We've had subsumption architecture for a long time now( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture ). Subsumption architecture puts some of the intelligence in the lower level systems. While the higher level controls can tell the lower level systems what it wants, it can't do things that the lower system determines is dangerous. So if a normal Mercedez has a collisio…

Very true. Which is why I'm still waiting for what happened to all the lower level safety systems, presumably driven by lighting invariant LIDAR or RADAR systems, in the Uber situation. The article kind of mentions: "cyclist detection from 3D point cloud is much harder task than cyclist detection from an image" The system didn't need to know that it was a "cyclist". There was something there, in its path. Stop.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN