Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 240 posts

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#141

Post by colejohnson66 »

simion314 wrote: post #132
ben174 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to warrant repeating every time this is brought up: It just needs to be 1% better than human drivers. If the net result is 1% less tragedies - sign me up. If it's better than the alternative, I'm in.

>It just needs to be 1% better than human drivers. If the net result is 1% less tragedies - sign me up. Say you have a child and want to send him to school, would you chose 1 drive him yourself, knowing you have 10 years of experience with zero accidents and you are responsible and care for your child 2 use a lottery that will give you a random driver, could be a 16 years old teen with 1 day experience, could be a 80…

Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#142

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

dogecoinbase wrote: post #128
robbrown451 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine the car has ways of identifying things that are specific hazards, such as a gas pump. Fruit stand is probably categorized as "other." "the problem is in having the correct ontology to even get to the "prioritization" stage." That part isn't done by the program, it is done by whoever enters the prioritization numbers. That is, someone, possibly a committee, can dial up the "avoid gas pumps" weighting r…

Sure, we'll just write down all the things there are in the world in order of how bad it is for a car to hit them.

We're really lucky we never see more than 1 thing at a time on the road.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#143

Post by bagacrap »

cozzyd wrote: post #19
flutas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article. > a San Francisco Fire Department truck responding to a fire tried to pass a doubled-parked garbage truck by using the opposing lane. a traveling autonomous vehicle (...) was blocking its path. While a human might have reversed to clear the lane, the Cruise car stayed put (......) Tiffany Testo, a spokesperson for Cruise, confirmed the incident. She said the driverless car had correctly yielded to t…

the garbage truck might be double parked because another car was illegally parked, even if there's a loading zone... In practice, double parking is extremely common in all cities...

ban street parking

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#144

Post by dreamcompiler »

feoren wrote: post #118
defen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation. So how do you know how the system will respond to an arbitrary situation? You could easily argue that we don't know how an arbitrary human will respond to an arbitrary situation, but we have systems in place to deal with the consequences if they handle it badly. For example, if a dri…

> So how do you know how the system will respond to an arbitrary situation? You put them in that situation and see how they respond. If they respond badly, you keep training them until they respond better. I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's exactly what autonomous-car developers been doing all this time.

You're basically saying test-driven development can find all problems with software, and it's well-known that that isn't the case. It's very dangerous to assume TDD is all that's needed when lives are at stake.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#145

Post by gojomo »

anyfoo wrote: post #45
gojomo wrote: post #6

Given that often human-driven, or human-parked, cars create similar temporary obstacles, the most important question here is: does this happen more-often, or for longer-periods, with autonomous cars? I don't see the article, or quoted sources, even trying to make that comparison - so this is really only a half-story, compared to what's relevant. Further, given the remote-guidance possibilities with autonomous cars, i…

The problem is that there are literally uncountably many situations that a human with "general intelligence" will understand and react to accordingly. Sometimes smoothly, sometimes less so. But a non-conscious automatic entity needs to have the required behavior programmed in explicitly. So yes, you might argue that for this particular situation, you "just" need to put in the proper programming and AI/ML training and…

There are not uncountably many – we live in a finite world governed by understandable physical and civic laws.

There's an actually measurable rate of humans blocking other traffic, and for how long before resolution, and an actually measurable rate of autonomous vehicles blocking other traffic, and for how long before resolved.

If the rate for autonomous vehicles is already below that of humans, or rapidly headed there, that's far more important to note than to theorize about other corner-cases.

(Also, as a San Francisco driver, I have serious doubts about the "general intelligence" of my fellow drivers. I don't see any reasons to hold autonomous cars to a higher standard – perhaps a much higher standard? – than other cars.)

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#147

Post by simion314 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #141
simion314 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It just needs to be 1% better than human drivers. If the net result is 1% less tragedies - sign me up. Say you have a child and want to send him to school, would you chose 1 drive him yourself, knowing you have 10 years of experience with zero accidents and you are responsible and care for your child 2 use a lottery that will give you a random driver, could be a 16 years old teen with 1 day experience, could be a 80…

Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist.

>Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist.

- Not everyone has access to school bus options

- not everyone can drive

- not everyone owns a self driving car

....

I would prefer if we stay on topic and answer at in Hypothetical question.

Or if you have a bias, let use a different domain

Your child is ill and you call for a doctor, but in this universe doctors are a lot of time drunk or are allowed to practice with zero experience, whyat do you chose

1 you call your family doctor that you trust and is not a drunk

2 you call the AI doctor that is terrible compared to a normal doctor but is better then the drunk doctors

3 you realize that it would be so much cheaper then creating an army of AI robot doctors to just fix the problem with drunk doctors, and maybe the fact you are an AI enthusiast won't prevent you think that comparing an AI with a drunk doctor is stupid, that we should have better stats then is better then the worse.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#148

Post by dylan604 »

anyfactor wrote: post #23

The trend of autonomous cars is one of the things that I believe is not practical. Even the most sophisticated machine learning algorithm requires repetition and constant input to be optimized. But there is infinitely many variables when it comes to driving on a street level. Driving is intuitive on a city street. The scope of autonomous vehicles should be limited to places where there is clarity of transit and very…

>could even be driven remotely by a real person in a data center.

doesn't this totally defeat the purpose of driverless cars? a remotely operated car is not the same thing as driverless. the company operating the car would still have to pay for a human to do work. also, as cool as remotely operated sounds, there are so many ways that is worse than a human in the car. for starters, peripheral vision is lost in remote.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#149

Post by nmstoker »

Isn't the dilemma here that these experiments are being done on far too big a scale for the low skill level the cars currently exhibit, and yet if you take that to the companies behind them they would all argue they need more cars to gain more ML experience in order to have a better outcome.

The driving capabilities are impressive from a tech perspective but they're pretty poor in comparison with average or even fairly poor drivers. Given these limited capabilities, the cars are obviously still in an early R&D stage and thus the companies running them ought to be giving far more priority to making the outward impact much less. How do they do that? Staff the human "take over" driver pools at far higher levels, so the take over is always smooth and rapid. Right now it's like those useless chat boxes on websites where they ask you to chat and then find they've got no human to engage with you, as they multiplexed excessively.

Bringing the number of humans down once the systems are good enough is fine and that's how they'll get their commercial rewards but doing it now is premature.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#150

Post by colejohnson66 »

simion314 wrote: post #147
colejohnson66 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist.

>Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist. - Not everyone has access to school bus options - not everyone can drive - not everyone owns a self driving car .... I would prefer if we stay on topic and answer at in Hypothetical question. Or if you have a bias, let use a different domain Your child is ill and you call for a doctor, but in this universe doctors are a lot of time drunk or ar…

Chill out. I never said I was an AI enthusiast. Maybe don’t assume things because someone made a small critique about your comment? I was simply responding to your question of why people choose 2 or 3 when 1 is an option. Because it’s not always an option. You even admit that at the top of your comment. Which leads me to ask: what are you trying to prove here?
Post reply on HN