Driverless cars are stuck in a jam • Hacker News Board

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#131

Post by C14L » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:29 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #46

baroffoos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same Ideally we should not be accepting either. It is outrageous how many people we allow to be killed regularly for slightly more comfortable transport.

Cars are way more comfortable and more convenient than public transit. Working Parisians who take transit spend 113 minutes a day commuting: https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-a-y... DC, where most people drive, averages about 70 minutes. Commuters in Dallas, where everyone drives, spend just 54 minutes a day commuting: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Hou...

Not sure why you quote average commute times of random cities and what that has to do with comfort of cars v. public transit.

But personally, I prefer to take the subway and read and relax for half an hour before and after work, instead of having to drive in rush hour.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#132

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:29 AM UTC

theieindjri wrote: post #38

crocal wrote: post #8

The article misses an important point. It’s not only a problem of technology, it’s also a problem of risk acceptance. While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same, even if the failure rate is on average /better/. This is the fundamental issue Elon Musk has. The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or eve…

I don't understand why so many otherwise smart people fell for FSD hype. I'm not talking about the many con artists - I'm talking about the tech-savvy people who genuinely bought into FSD hype. How is it not obvious that FSD most likely requires artificial general intelligence and is, thus, probably somewhere between "many decades away" and "humans will never achieve it"?

My explanation is that some writers in the technical press got taken in by the idea (possibly encouraged by exclusive stories and other favours by the industry) and wrote a series of articles about self-driving cars, how they will change driving for ever, save lives, etc. This started happening a few years ago, around the start of Google's self-driving project.

These writers, being tech writers and not AI experts, didn't understand the subject very well and basicaly just repeated the industry's claims without really understanding the state of the art.

Then people reading those articles who also were not AI experts and didn't have much of a technical background anwyay (except being interested in cars) got taken in, thiking that if the press says that self-driving cars are just around the corner, then they must be just around the corner.

Why did software folks in particular got taken in? Because most people who write software don't write AI software and even many who use it don't understand it. Computer people are used to thinking of computers like magical dream machines, so the common reaction to overinflated claims about AI in general is wonder before surprise and cheering before skepticism.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#133

Post by bogle » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:29 AM UTC

If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive?

Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and all the other cities, like London and New York, that are embarking on ambitious transformations to create friendlier streets for people.

If you don't need to drive why would you buy a driverless car? Also, why would I prefer a driverless taxi if an electric car with a human driver costs no more?

Note that I'm only asking about city travel, not intercity transportation.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#134

Post by addictedcs » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:33 AM UTC

mr__y wrote: post #111

rmason wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Musk and George Hotz that lidar is never going to get there. That's because in Michigan the terrain that lidar has mastered changes drastically every time it snows. For those of us in snowy climates limiting us to self-driving to seven months a year isn't going to cut it.

Just because lidar is not working in certain places and certain conditions does not mean that it's always useless. It just means that an AV cannot rely [only ]on lidar. Lidar could be used as a suplementary sensor - that is providing additional sensory data when appropriate and switching to non-lidar mode when conditions require. This is one of the things where AV can have a clear advantage over [even above ]average…

If you switch to non-lidar mode for unfavorable condition, why don't just use the non-lidar for all conditions. A system that is safe for unfavorable conditions is likely to be the system that is safe for all conditions.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#135

Post by mellosouls » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:35 AM UTC

theieindjri wrote: post #38

crocal wrote: post #8

The article misses an important point. It’s not only a problem of technology, it’s also a problem of risk acceptance. While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same, even if the failure rate is on average /better/. This is the fundamental issue Elon Musk has. The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or eve…

I don't understand why so many otherwise smart people fell for FSD hype. I'm not talking about the many con artists - I'm talking about the tech-savvy people who genuinely bought into FSD hype. How is it not obvious that FSD most likely requires artificial general intelligence and is, thus, probably somewhere between "many decades away" and "humans will never achieve it"?

If it requires AGI, it is difficult to see how it would happen even in that event - ethics would demand "human" rights be considered, which would hopefully quickly rule out sentient vehicular slaves.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#136

Post by cogman10 » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:36 AM UTC

stubish wrote: post #129

crocal wrote: post #8

The article misses an important point. It’s not only a problem of technology, it’s also a problem of risk acceptance. While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same, even if the failure rate is on average /better/. This is the fundamental issue Elon Musk has. The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or eve…

I see a lot of talk about how society will not accept machines that might make mistakes, but I don't think society has actually had a chance to make its opinions known yet. Society isn't the noisy voices and the click bait headlines, it is people who mostly quickly adapted to elevators and lifts and planes and trains, all of which are vehicles that have killed people while operating autonomously. I expect you will fi…

Yup, I'd say it is more that corporations aren't ready to take the legal risk of SDC.

If I get into a car accident, my insurance company gets the fun job of litigating. Either I or the other driver will be found liable.

If the car was driving, however, and it makes a mistake then the manufacturer could be held liable. And since car manufacturers have deep pockets, you can bet they'll get sued.

This is why manufacturers are pursuing perfection. Not because of a moral obligation, rather, a financial one.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#137

Post by IMTDb » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:37 AM UTC

_xnmw wrote: post #108

rocgf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just being pedantic, but those are seven 9s, not five. For five 9s, the downtime is indeed 5 minutes per year, for seven 9s it's about 3 seconds.

Still an interesting question: is 3 seconds of erroneous/unreliable behaviour per year acceptable from an autonomous vehicle?

Even 5 minutes per year is totally acceptable. 5 minutes is 300,000 miliseconds. Split over the course of 365 days at 86400 seconds per day, we are looking at roughly 1 milisecond of erratic behaviour every 105 seconds. Not enough to crash a car

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#138

Post by megablast » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:37 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #43

baroffoos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same Ideally we should not be accepting either. It is outrageous how many people we allow to be killed regularly for slightly more comfortable transport.

> slightly more comfortable transport. Slightly more comfortable than what? Horses? Bicycles? Walking? There were 158,493 registered deaths in Australia in 2018, [1] of which 1137 were due to motor vehicle accidents [1]. Motor vehicle related deaths don't even rate in the top 20 causes of death. [also 1] The rate of motor vehicle related deaths in Australia peaked in 1970 at 30.4 per 100,000 population per year, and…

Ok, lets not forget the 40,000 seriously injured or disabled every year in Australia.

> Slightly more comfortable than what? Horses? Bicycles? Walking?

Buses, trains, trams, scooters, many other ways.

71% of Aussies live in major cities, and most have no need for a car. Yet we are one of the most car addicted people in the world. Billions wasted every year on this. Ridiculous.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#139

Post by reportgunner » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:41 AM UTC

Self driving cars only make sense to me as a replacement for taxi services.

That is, you don't own and don't maintain the car and you don't care where the car is. You call it when you need it and it drives away when you don't.

I can't see this realized until we avoid the uphill battle of not running over pedestrians and deciding which one to spare in case you cannot avoid running one over. One way to avoid this battle that I see is completely outlawing pedestrians on the road.

Then you have cyclists and similar. What do we do about those ?

Considering the above I don't think driverless cars solve a problem that we have.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#140

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 10:44 AM UTC

So, do we, as modern people, consciously accept that in order to get faster to our destination some people must necessarily lose their lives because of the technology we use to transport us?

Given that our transport technology is not completely safe, we must accept that some people will die using it. Even a very low chance of lethal accidents means that some lethal accidents _must_ happen. Some people _will_ lose their lives. So in order for most of us to get to our destination by plane or car or train, etc, some people must never reach theirs.

Does the general public appreciate this or is it just the case that people get into their cars or board planes, etc, thinking "nah, it won't happen to me"?