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

Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 331 posts

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#291

Post by concordDance »

chongli wrote: post #233
concordDance wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why people think intelligence requires things like a desire for suffrage... There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Heck, even counting votes would be quite impossible (how much divergence does a copy need before it gets its own vote? What it not all modules/nodes are copied?). Also, the anti-suffrage women seem to have been…

There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Because driving requires the ability to understand what other drivers are doing. It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals.

You can understand something/someone without agreeing with them and having the same goals.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#292

Post by etienne_oq »

crazygringo wrote: post #24

Obviously autonomous vehicles need to be able to respond to officials directing traffic for any reason -- making way for ambulances, stopping for firefighters, being pulled over for a faulty headlight. Surely Cruise and Waymo have thought about this. Curious how it's supposed to work normally, and whether something about it failed in this case? How is an official supposed to get a moving autonomous vehicle to stop or…

I agree. It could be as simple as a stop button on the outside, or just any kind of contact on the front hood. Press it and the car stops until a remote operator resets it.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#293

Post by thatguy0900 »

jimjimjim wrote: post #222
retrac wrote: post #12

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,…

driverless cars will have endless problems. When I was on sales trip to KL in Malaysia there were times when the tropical rain could half flood a street in minutes. Our driver was able to creep around the shallow side of the road (alternating with cars in the other direction). How would a driverless car cope? Would it even detect that there was problem? and if it detected it and wouldn't drive on that might be the wo…

We will get the worst of both worlds, the car will tell you to take over in dangerous or confusing conditions but the person taking over will have minimal driving experience, on account of the car taking it all.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#294

Post by bdcravens »

retrac wrote: post #12
mindcrime wrote: post #2

Less anybody think "this is no big deal", let me assure you as a former firefighter, cars driving over fire hoses is a MAJOR deal. Whether the car is driven by a human or AI. And sadly, humans do this all too often anyway. FWIW, the reason(s) this is bad - if not obvious - include: - The hose can (and does) get snagged on the car's under-carriage, which can rip it away from a hydrant, or engine, or yank an attack lin…

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,…

Driverless is a huge waste. Most of Tesla's bad press (the company/product, not Elon) is due to Autopilot and/or FSD.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#295

Post by hgsgm »

steveBK123 wrote: post #253
cowmoo728 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm too optimistic about self driving but it seems that a fail-safe default of "upon encountering an active emergency situation, stop at a reasonable distance away" is good enough and better than what a significant minority of human drivers do.

How do we know we can make the machines smart enough to detect the dangerous situations it is incapable of handling on its own? It's just a bit too perfect, no?

How do we know we can make humans do it?

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#296

Post by hgsgm »

colechristensen wrote: post #209
ulizzle wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are the significant minority? This is the same claim always given by the A.I boosters. Who sees firefighters fighting a fire and decides to just plow through and make matters worse? Because by "significant minority" what you are saying is that 2 or 3 out of 10 human drivers do this.

Exactly. The fact that some humans are drunks or psychopaths does not mean that AI mistakes are going to just be accepted. We send people to prison when they make those kinds of mistakes, what do we do when machine learning models kill while functioning entirely normally?

> We send people to prison when they make those kinds of mistakes, what do we do when machine learning models kill while functioning entirely normally?

Assess a massive fine. Money is lifeblood of a corpo.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#297

Post by tuatoru »

Tv9m wrote: post #276
chongli wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Because driving requires the ability to understand what other drivers are doing. It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals.

> It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals. Like chess?

Almost, but not quite, exactly unlike chess.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#298

Post by jwestbury »

chongli wrote: post #270
barelyauser wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can try to reduce these things. Most things can be reduced to "obstacles". If obstacles are behaving the way we predict, then they are logical, otherwise they are flagged as illogical. When i engage in "subtle cues" or "body language" while on traffic i never trust it. If someone starts to drive illogically i never try to predict what they will do next, i just flag them as illogical and prepare for the worst.

There is a way to solve all these issues: keep humans (and other animals) away. This is how it's done with railroads. Unfortunately, there's not a whole of advantage in eliminating the engineer of a train since the ratio of engineers to passengers is so small to begin with. I think instead of flirting with this absurd fantasy of self-driving cars we should be doing more to invest in railroads and other forms of mass…

Mass transit doesn't get you exactly where you need to go. In areas with lower population density, it's especially unprofitable and difficult to implement -- and even if communities can afford it, it will deliver people even FARTHER from where they need to go.

I'm a transit advocate, but there are some fundamental issues that need to be resolved first, especially in North America.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#300

Post by numpad0 »

ctoth wrote: post #174
goodpoint wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it may be not always in the passenger's best interest What is a realistic scenario here? Unless you are in a tank in a warzone... How is a traditional, non-self driving car protecting you from someone pointing a gun at you? Do you have bullet-proof glass and bodywork?

Here[0] is a realistic scenario from last week near me. Just checked. No tanks involved. You can decide for yourself if it is a warzone. Note: OP edited the post after my response. Would be good if HN indicated this. [0]: Cherry Creek carjacking prompts other victims to come forward https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/cherry-creek-carjackin...

> "When all the four doors popped open and they came out with assault rifles, I was honestly thinking, I'm going to be dead," he said, remembering the moment the suspects got out of that car.

That sounds warzone tbh.

Post reply on HN