Was Mobileye actually part of the implementation of Uber's self-driving technology and was somehow disabled or not used properly? Or is this just a piece of not-so-submarine PR? If the latter, I don't understand the point of this article.
Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
21–30 of 91 posts
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. But suppose the difference mentioned (1 sec) is true. That's such a large difference that what they call for (formal outside verification) sounds pretty reasonable. This debate will always be hard since it will involve deaths, with AI and video involved.
You're right. Developing video games has taught me that a second is a long time. But we still don't even know that Uber didn't detect them that early. The CV system or other sensors could have picked out the pedestrian but something else went wrong instead. I tend to think that if Uber did detect the pedestrian, they would have said something by now. But perhaps they prefer the optics of not having seen her to the op…
This reminds me of a survey I had taken. I can't remember the survey publisher but it was related to self-driving vehicles.
You were presented two pictures (e.g. a picture of school kids crossing a crosswalk and the other a picture of an adult male and female walking their dog across a crosswalk). Presumably you had to choose; would you swerve to hit the adults and dog or would you stay course and hit the kids.
I know there is no moral compass for a computer system to determine what it should do in the scenario but I laughed at the quiz because I couldn't believe this is the kind of data that will feed machine-learning algorithms.
It just feels bad.
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
One fear is that Uber's mistakes will endanger the whole self-driving industry, by making people afraid. I'd say these companies are trying to separate themselves to avoid that.
i know it will sound insensitive, but one person dying is not that big of a deal... heck 1000 people dying is only 10% of the amount of people that die each year for drunk driving[1] and you don't see liquor being pulled off the shelves. however i do see how people (including me) are sheep and can be manipulated into believing anything. taxis and trucker unions can use this an opportunity to condemn self driving vehi…
That doesn't just sound insensitive.
Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance.
People do die from drunk driving, and those drivers go to jail because they fucked up in a huge way. That's no reason to give Uber a dead-person mulligan. Indeed, it's a reason that some Uber exec should perhaps be wearing an orange jumpsuit over this.
I'm all for self-driving cars, as done right deaths will go down. But that means we shouldn't introduce them until they are well-made enough that deaths actually go down.
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#24Was Mobileye actually part of the implementation of Uber's self-driving technology and was somehow disabled or not used properly? Or is this just a piece of not-so-submarine PR? If the latter, I don't understand the point of this article.
Uber disabled Mobileye's detection system in the car, from what I can understand.
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#25We really won’t know what happened until the NTSB report comes out, but I’m not convinced this was an object detection failure. It seems really possible to me that the sensors detected the bike-walking person as a bicyclist, and a bicyclist in a different lane is not a reason to slam on the brakes. They might have just forgotten to add a rule that a bicyclist in a parallel lane is a reason to brake if it’s perpendicu…
Any sane self-driving system needs to be a lot smarter than this. It needs to do motion tracking and estimation of future position. Otherwise it's going to run into lots of cyclists and pedestrians, and continue to fail for objects it can't identify (imagine a cyclist carrying something big and bulky). The software needs to be smart enough to not hit anything, and in order to do so it needs to extrapolate future positions of objects based on their current velocity.
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#26Look. It's generating bad press right now for your industry. I get that. I also think that in the long run your industry will be far safer than human drivers. But now is not the time to post speculative bullshit like this. Would your car also have run into a school shooting unarmed? You weren't in that situation, you don't know all the edge cases, the best you can say is that you had a similar situation under control…
Mobile-eye has a history of throwing partners and competitors under the bus (see Tesla). It's not just about bad events, it's part of their corporate DNA.
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#27Look. It's generating bad press right now for your industry. I get that. I also think that in the long run your industry will be far safer than human drivers. But now is not the time to post speculative bullshit like this. Would your car also have run into a school shooting unarmed? You weren't in that situation, you don't know all the edge cases, the best you can say is that you had a similar situation under control…
Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story -
Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
i know it will sound insensitive, but one person dying is not that big of a deal... heck 1000 people dying is only 10% of the amount of people that die each year for drunk driving[1] and you don't see liquor being pulled off the shelves. however i do see how people (including me) are sheep and can be manipulated into believing anything. taxis and trucker unions can use this an opportunity to condemn self driving vehi…
That doesn't just sound insensitive. Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. People do die from drunk driving, and those drivers go to jail because they fucked up in a huge way. That's no reason to give Uber a dead-person mulligan. Indeed, it's a reason that some…
Well, they were still jaywalking in the middle of the night hoping oncoming cars would stop for them.
It's not like the car hopped the curb.
Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#29Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality
#30Look. It's generating bad press right now for your industry. I get that. I also think that in the long run your industry will be far safer than human drivers. But now is not the time to post speculative bullshit like this. Would your car also have run into a school shooting unarmed? You weren't in that situation, you don't know all the edge cases, the best you can say is that you had a similar situation under control…
Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.
The whole point is that uber is developing their own gear. Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. Of course they turned off the other systems.