171–180 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So blindly follow random instructions without making sure it's the safe thing to do? The car was driving 11 mph. The obvious thing to do is very simple: hit the brakes! Stop, re-evaluate, and then continue.
Hitting the brakes in the middle of an intersection is very safe. What exactly would the machine evaluate in a couple seconds that it can’t do instantly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've made this argument here a few times and am always shot down, but I think its important to highlight that the airline industry has an extremely robust history of automation and HCI in critical transportation scenarios and it seems to me that all the lessons that we have learned have been chucked out the window with self-driving cars. Being able to effectively reason about what the automation is doing is such an i…
I recently avoided a startup prospect because they were looking to build a car OS that wasn't hard real-time. The very idea that they're trying to develop such things that might intermittently pause to do some garbage collection is freaking terrifying.
Is the car turning right (after a no right turn sign) while it was supposed to be going straight according to nav?
I did not see a no right turn sign. ed: modeless 1 hour ago >That sign applies only to the lanes to the left of the pillars. It is legal to turn right there from the right lane. I've done it myself. Yes, it is confusing.
I think we’re missing the point that this is currently designed for a driver to monitor at all times, the driver intervened appropriately, and thereby provided another training example for the network. This is also a beta version that is being tested by humans who have the legal and moral responsibility for control of the car.
One of the attributes of human perception is that it is TERRIBLE at maintaining persistent vigilance without engagement.
Even at a very low level, the nervous system is designed to habituate to constant stimuli; e.g., when you first encounter something that smells (good or bad) it can be overwhelming, but after a few minutes the same smell barely registers. More on point, spend some time looking forward at speed, or rotating (e.g., in a swivel chair), then stop quickly, and watch how your visual system creates the illusion of everything flowing in the opposite direction.
Now, scale that up to higher levels of cognition. The more the car gets right, the worse will be the human's attention. When a car here does almost everything right, people can and will literally read or fall asleep at the wheel. Until that one critical failure.
As a former licensed road racing driver and champion, I find the idea of anything between L2 and L4 to be terrifying. I can and have handled many very tricky and emergency situations at a wide range of speeds on everything from dry roads to wet ice (on and off the track) — when my attention was fully focused on the road, the situation, my grip levels, the balance of the car, etc.
The idea of being largely unfocused while the car does almost everything, then having an alert and having to regain, in fractions of a second, full orientation to everything I need to know then take action, is terrifying. 60 mph is 88 feet per second. Even a quick reaction where I've squandered only a half second figuring out what to do is the difference between avoiding or stopping before an obstacle, and blowing ~50' past it, or over it, at speed.
Attempts to say "it's just fine because a human is in the loop (and ultimately responsible)" are just bullsh*t and evading responsibility, even if human beta testing is fantastic for gathering massive amounts of data to analyze.
Among high risk and speed sports, it is almost axiomatic for us to draw distinctions between "smart crazy" vs "dumb crazy", and everyone knows the difference without a definition. The best definition I heard was that it's the difference between [using knowledge, technology, and skill to make a hazardous activity reliably safe] vs [getting away with something]. You can 'get away' with Russian Roulette 5 out of six times, and you'll probably get a great adrenaline rush, but you can't expect to do so for long.
Although this kind of "full self driving" has much better odds vs Russian Roulette, it is still unreliable, and the system of expecting the human to always be able to detect, orient, and respond in time to the car's errors is systematically unsafe. You will 'get away with it' a lot, and there will even be times when the system catches things the humans won't.
But to place the entire "legal and moral responsibility" on the human to 100% reliably operate a system that is specifically designed against human capabilities is wrong, unless you want to say that this is a [no human should every operate under these conditions], like drunk driving, and outlaw the system and the action of operating it.
Maximise the video and watch the left hand HUD pane from 0:10 to 0:11. The dotted black line coming from the front of the car (which I am assuming is the intended route) quickly snaps from straight ahead, to a hair pin right, to a normal right turn. Ignoring the fact that the right turn happened to be into a pedestrian crossing with people on it - what was the car even trying to do? The sat-nav shows it should have j…
I've made this argument here a few times and am always shot down, but I think its important to highlight that the airline industry has an extremely robust history of automation and HCI in critical transportation scenarios and it seems to me that all the lessons that we have learned have been chucked out the window with self-driving cars. Being able to effectively reason about what the automation is doing is such an i…
there are keys difference between automation in e.g. aircraft, and what Tesla at al are failing at,
e.g., how constrained the environment is; and what the exposure is to anomalous conditions is; and what the opportunity window usually is to turn control back over to a human.
The thing I don't understand is, we have a much more comparable environment in ground travel: federal highways.
Innumerable regressions and bugs and lapses aside, I do not understand why so much effort is being wasted on a problem which IMO obviously requires AGI to reach a threshold of safety we are collectively liable to consider reasonable; when we could be putting the same effort into the (also IMO) much more valuable and impactful case of optimizing automated traffic flow in highway travel.
Not only is the problem domain much more constrained, there is a single regulatory body, which could e.g. support and mandate coordination and federated and data sharing/emergent networking, to promote collective behavior to optimize flow in ways that humans limited-information self-interested human drivers cannot.
The benefits are legion.
And,
I would pay 10x as much to be able to cede control at the start of a 3-hour trip to LA, than to be able to get to work each morning. Though for a lot of Americans, that also is highway travel.
Not just this, why not start with the low-hanging case of highway travel, and work out from there onto low-density high-speed multi-lane well-maintained roads? Yes that means Tesla techs who live in Dublin don't get it first. Oh well...
IMO there will never be true, safe FSD in areas like my city (SF) absent something more more comparable to AGI. The problem is literally too hard and the last-20% is not amenable to brute forcing with semantically vacuous ML.
I just don't get it.
Unless we take Occam's razor, and assume it's just grift and snake oil to drive valuation and investment.
Maybe the quiet part and reason for engineering musical chairs is just what you'd think, everyone knows this is not happening; but shhhh the VC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the video Tesla was probably not closer than 25 feet from any pedestrians. If pedestrians were closer I think their proximity would make the car stop as in other videos. As to abrupt maneuver, EU limits rate of change for steering control and I think it would be wise for US to adopt something similar for driver assist systems.
>> As to abrupt maneuver, EU limits rate of change for steering control and I think it would be wise for US to adopt something similar for driver assist systems. That's a terrible idea. First it's a bandaid over an underlying problem. Second it's a legislative answer to a technical problem, which is IMHO never a good idea.
Above everything, the car's driver assist should not be making moves that human does not understand if system requires human to supervise it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying the tesla self driving capability is on par with humans driving at near their worst in a panic'd sort of circumstance. Great!
Right, nothing should ever be built unless it can be 100% correct immediately. I’m stunned that it hasn’t, so far as we know, actually hit anything yet. I’m not sure how, but clearly they’re doing something right between choosing drivers and writing software.
Right, a strawman.
How about this compromise: Let's call it "Poorly Implemented Self Driving" until it improves, and we won't try to sell it years early too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean... 5 minutes on /r/IdiotsInCars and it's very easy for me to understand how even with bizarre bugs like this, it's better than people. People say "how could it happen?!" and get angry for a software bug - that can be fixed - and seem to accept how drunk drivers do this (and a lot worse) literally every single day. But since it's a human, that's fine! Edit: wording
There are pretty stringent laws against drunk driving in most places... if Tesla's "self driving" modes are that bad then they should be equally illegal
You could make a law that states that your FSD has to be at least as good as humans. That means you have the same post-problem verification but now the parallel with drunk drivers can be made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently avoided a startup prospect because they were looking to build a car OS that wasn't hard real-time. The very idea that they're trying to develop such things that might intermittently pause to do some garbage collection is freaking terrifying.
To play devil's advocate...and because I'm just not that educated in the space, is this really a huge deal? If we're talking couple ms at a time delays, isn't that still vastly superior to what a human could achieve?