Self-driving cars are headed toward an AI roadblock • Hacker News Board

Re: Self-driving cars are headed toward an AI roadblock

#251

Post by phyzome » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #209

phyzome wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me more about downward-spiraling, and how this relates to the guidelines? The guy in the article seems to be implying that pedestrians don't have the right to be in the road. I think it's pretty OK to be dismissive of that.

Ng didn't say anything about giving up on crosswalks. He mentioned "bouncing on a pogo stick in the middle of a highway" could be a bad idea but I guess that's true with human drivers too.

And yet, the Uber car hit someone crossing the road, walking a bicycle, because it couldn't slot her into either "pedestrian" or "bicycle". What about someone using a walker, bent over and shuffling? It's not going to recognize that person either. The only way to make the "road safe for cars" (of that sort) is to remove all the huge variety of actual road-users from the road.

Re: Self-driving cars are headed toward an AI roadblock

#252

Post by phyzome » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #220

phyzome wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me more about downward-spiraling, and how this relates to the guidelines? The guy in the article seems to be implying that pedestrians don't have the right to be in the road. I think it's pretty OK to be dismissive of that.

"Seriously fuck that guy" is low-grade internet sludge. We don't need that here. If you post it, others will post more, and we will get all sludgey. That's point #1. Point #2 is more subtle and more important. You picked an uncharitable interpretation in order to get snippy at it. That's a self-referential activity, not the thoughtful engagement we're looking for. This is why the site guidelines say: " Please respond…

OK, thanks -- I'll be more careful with language, and next time will back up my point better. (I don't think I was picking an uncharitable interpretation, and elsewhere in this thread I clarify that.)

Re: Self-driving cars are headed toward an AI roadblock

#253

Post by rohit2412 » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #250

rohit2412 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's a wrong benchmark. We shouldn't compare driverless cars with the average human driver. We should compare them with the average human driver assisted by the best technology (which is say waymo's driverless software running passively to prevent accidents).

That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world. Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes including price, convenience and safety. Not needing a driver, freeing up time and lowering prices increase utility which could even justify a slight increase in risk. But even if we don't want to increase risk then a self-driving system still only has to be as g…

Let's agree to disagree. But if we allow driverless cars on the road (with no backup), it should come after emergency braking, lane keeping assist, side collision assist etc have become mandatory. Just like airbags are mandatory now, and we enforce fuel efficiency on new cars but not existing cars.

Re: Self-driving cars are headed toward an AI roadblock

#254

Post by rohit2412 » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 11:17 PM UTC

rohit2412 wrote: post #253

the8472 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world. Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes including price, convenience and safety. Not needing a driver, freeing up time and lowering prices increase utility which could even justify a slight increase in risk. But even if we don't want to increase risk then a self-driving system still only has to be as g…

Let's agree to disagree. But if we allow driverless cars on the road (with no backup), it should come after emergency braking, lane keeping assist, side collision assist etc have become mandatory. Just like airbags are mandatory now, and we enforce fuel efficiency on new cars but not existing cars.

Just to add. In a world where airbags are not mandatory,(autopilot+airbag) driverless technology would be safer than the average human (without airbags) on the road. So, you would be arguing for legalizing driverless cars completely overlooking that the gains are not because of driverless-ness but because of airbags. This holds true now too, almost all gains by driverless-ness can be had by emergency braking, lane keeping assists, side collision warning, and pedestrian detection etc.

Re: Self-driving cars are headed toward an AI roadblock

#255

Post by Piskvorrr » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 8:25 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #231

mchahn wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Maybe instead of humans intervening in the AI, the AI should intervene in the human's driving.

That sort of already happens with lane assist, auto parallel parking, brake warnings, adaptive cruise control, etc.

This. Flipping the semantics around because Marketing thinks it will attract more customers is disingenuous at best, murderous at worst.

Re: Self-driving cars are headed toward an AI roadblock

#256

Post by tonyquart » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:49 PM UTC

Talking about self-driving cars, I always interested in the legal aspect of these cars. What's the regulation, what are the driver's (or passenger?) responsibilities, and what are the automakers' responsibilities. I have just read a nice information related to this matter at https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-accid.... It's always interesting to talk about this future technology.