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

Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#11

Post by eschutte2 »

kartan wrote: post #6

> The company’s “Large Animal Detection system” can identify and avoid deer, elk and caribou, but early testing in Australia shows it cannot adjust to the kangaroo’s unique method of movement. In Sweden there are elks and deer but not so many kangaroos. :) An intelligent system needs to learn. To learn it needs examples.

Funny you say that, as I was just reading this: https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/motte-kenguruen-da-han-var-pa-ve... (not Sweden, I know). The video does show their interesting movement.

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#12

Post by sandworm101 »

hanoz wrote: post #10

> "Although it hasn’t been tested in a kangaroo-specific environment, there was an instance where black swans were interfering" I think I know how to interpret that sentence...

They mean that they have in the past dealt with animal-specific issues, rather than a generic approach. I take it mean that they will have to write some roo-specific rules as they once did for black swans.

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#13

Post by elmar »

hanoz wrote: post #10

> "Although it hasn’t been tested in a kangaroo-specific environment, there was an instance where black swans were interfering" I think I know how to interpret that sentence...

Black Swan Farming (Paul Graham)

http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#14

Post by sandworm101 »

TillE wrote: post #2

Doesn't this just suggest that computer vision is practically impossible to perfect, and that cameras + LIDAR would be far better for safely driving a car? You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences.

>> You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences.

Humans do pretty good with fuzzy notions of where the animal is. Exact distances aren't needed so much as reasonable estimates. If it is probably in the "need to brake zone" then the car brakes. Plus or minus a few meters isn't a big deal so long as you've got margins to work with. As animals are unpredictable, Volvo certainly has wide margins.

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#17

Post by lanstin »

sandworm101 wrote: post #14
TillE wrote: post #2

Doesn't this just suggest that computer vision is practically impossible to perfect, and that cameras + LIDAR would be far better for safely driving a car? You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences.

>> You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences. Humans do pretty good with fuzzy notions of where the animal is. Exact distances aren't needed so much as reasonable estimates. If it is probably in the "need to brake zone" then the car brakes. Plus or minus a few meters isn't a big deal so long as you've got margins to work with. As animals are unpredictable, Volvo certainly has wide ma…

Plus if there is anything the human vision system is optimized for it would be seeing and assessing an unknown large mammal.

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#18

Post by [deleted] »

sandworm101 wrote: post #14
TillE wrote: post #2

Doesn't this just suggest that computer vision is practically impossible to perfect, and that cameras + LIDAR would be far better for safely driving a car? You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences.

>> You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences. Humans do pretty good with fuzzy notions of where the animal is. Exact distances aren't needed so much as reasonable estimates. If it is probably in the "need to brake zone" then the car brakes. Plus or minus a few meters isn't a big deal so long as you've got margins to work with. As animals are unpredictable, Volvo certainly has wide ma…

[deleted]

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#19

Post by [deleted] »

sandworm101 wrote: post #14
TillE wrote: post #2

Doesn't this just suggest that computer vision is practically impossible to perfect, and that cameras + LIDAR would be far better for safely driving a car? You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences.

>> You need actual distances to objects, not just fuzzy error-prone inferences. Humans do pretty good with fuzzy notions of where the animal is. Exact distances aren't needed so much as reasonable estimates. If it is probably in the "need to brake zone" then the car brakes. Plus or minus a few meters isn't a big deal so long as you've got margins to work with. As animals are unpredictable, Volvo certainly has wide ma…

[deleted]

Re: Volvo admits its self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos

#20

Post by joombaga »

danieltillett wrote: post #9

Lots of human drivers are confused by kangaroos and kangaroos are confused by cars especially at night. You see an awful lot dead kangaroos on the side of the road in rural Australia. As an aside, kangaroos in motion are one of the most efficient and elegant mammals. I love watching them bounding away at speed effortlessly dodging scrub and trees - more like flight than running.

What's the general feeling about taking the meat after a collision? Where I grew up, people would butcher the animal if it's not terribly destroyed. Around here there's a wild hog problem, which are edible but not very tasty, so the local wildlife agency picks them up and they're used in soup kitchens to feed the homeless.
Post reply on HN