181–190 of 331 posts
Was there actually a fire? > fire hoses on the ground in the area of active firefighting It sounds like there wasn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm slightly alarmed by the general scenario of a driverless vehicle approaching an emergency situation. A human-driven vehicle will respond to gestures from firefighters to go around, etc. And even most dull humans will have more situational awareness and flexibility than an AI is likely to, particularly as these sorts of scenarios are edge cases by definition. E.g. depending on your jurisdiction and the situation,…
Sounds like having support for interpreting human gestures will solve some of the problems. But how do we distinguish real emergency scenario from fake one? Such kinds of problems will only scale up as we apply L5 cars take on more public roads, but I wonder how long or what changes will have to be done in current road signs, critical city infra to support them.
Add that to the _LONG_ list of issues that will have to be solved until we can even think about releasing autonomous cars in the streets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should it? I don't see how the firefighters did anything wrong.
Firefighters practically salivate at the possibility of smashing the windows of a car parked in front of a hydrant they need to access for supply. This isn't much different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>other things that can cause bodily harm. So everything? I, for instance, recall a certain style of sketchers that had to be recalled because they caused bodily injury. Do you likewise demand (e.g.) independent and peer-reviewed studies before new footwear can be put on the market?
Don't be a fool. You know what I mean. Medicines and self driving cars can cause irreperable damage on a larger scale than a shoe does. You sound like you would be first in line to give a pregnant woman Thalidomide too and that was considered "safe and effective" as well until it wasn't.
Don't be a fool - irreparable harm is occurring and you and people like you are standing in the way of fixing it.
The current state of the art kills 40,000 people a year.[0] You've got to consider the bigger picture around 'dangerous'. Skepticism here isn't prudent, isn't reasonable, and frankly will be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. The analogy is inane because your premise is.
[0]Say it with me: "A number if people equivalent to everyone I've ever met or will ever meet will die this year by automobile in America." And maybe one of them will be from a self driving car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm slightly alarmed by the general scenario of a driverless vehicle approaching an emergency situation. A human-driven vehicle will respond to gestures from firefighters to go around, etc. And even most dull humans will have more situational awareness and flexibility than an AI is likely to, particularly as these sorts of scenarios are edge cases by definition. E.g. depending on your jurisdiction and the situation,…
Sounds like having support for interpreting human gestures will solve some of the problems. But how do we distinguish real emergency scenario from fake one? Such kinds of problems will only scale up as we apply L5 cars take on more public roads, but I wonder how long or what changes will have to be done in current road signs, critical city infra to support them.
Unfortunately that attitude is common is the industry. The notion that the rest of the world needs to provide extra, up to date information for the shitty AI so it can function.
I have news for ya. Emergency road repairs, fires, etc are not going to make it into your world database in a timely manner so a dumb vehicle can navigate the situation. It will all be over before anyone even thinks about fixing your system for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like having support for interpreting human gestures will solve some of the problems. But how do we distinguish real emergency scenario from fake one? Such kinds of problems will only scale up as we apply L5 cars take on more public roads, but I wonder how long or what changes will have to be done in current road signs, critical city infra to support them.
How do people distinguish that? A person is likely to fall for a fake police officer and fake police car
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this is currently possible today: I can walk out on any street today and redirect traffic. With or without my reflective vest, drivers will generally listen to me. And self-driving vehicles must as well. Note that when I am doing traffic direction with appropriate authority, most drivers will never have heard of the organization I'm a part of (a local CERT team), nor have any real way to vet the authority I have.…
>most drivers will never have heard of the organization I'm a part of (a local CERT team) Will you have to file a CVE after the incident?
Community Emergency Response Team: https://community.fema.gov/PreparednessCommunity/s/welcome-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm slightly alarmed by the general scenario of a driverless vehicle approaching an emergency situation. A human-driven vehicle will respond to gestures from firefighters to go around, etc. And even most dull humans will have more situational awareness and flexibility than an AI is likely to, particularly as these sorts of scenarios are edge cases by definition. E.g. depending on your jurisdiction and the situation,…
Teleoperations is a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human drivers are smart, and will generally judge your appearance, confidence, and context to determine whether or not your actions are legitimate. And you likely always pass these tests. Imagine a teenager, dressed in street wear, who jumps into the middle of a street to stop traffic in a way that has no explanation given the scene, while their friends laugh on the sidewalk as they observe. Or a group of men in mask…
My brother and his teenage friends redirected traffic into their school grounds to prove that they could do it. They also passed all 'sure, looks legit' tests.
The more important test scenarios are life threatening or unreasonably disruptive situations rather than harmless pranks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like having support for interpreting human gestures will solve some of the problems. But how do we distinguish real emergency scenario from fake one? Such kinds of problems will only scale up as we apply L5 cars take on more public roads, but I wonder how long or what changes will have to be done in current road signs, critical city infra to support them.
> But how do we distinguish real emergency scenario from fake one? A car shouldn't make that call. It should err on the side of safety and assuming the emergency is real. When you see flashing lights on the highway coming up behind you, do you think "I bet that ambulance is faking it so they can get home faster", or do you just move over?
“You” in the specific or general sense? Because, my observations of highway behavior suggest that actual humans are…far from ideal at this.