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

Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 300 posts

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#171

Post by extropy »

eck wrote: post #143
ChuckMcM wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking it meant the car would not drive itself away and hide after a collision :-)

That could actually be an interesting problem. It might sound like "in the event of a impact >Xg, stop, shut down, and wait for police/NTSB/etc to come investigate". But if, say, you hit a deer on a wilderness road in the winter, that behavior could lead to the passengers all dying of exposure. Do self-driving cars have a button labeled "fuck your rules and DRIVE"?

Yes, unless it's level 5. Then you walk.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#172

Post by dragonwriter »

harryh wrote: post #166
throwaway729 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a fairly reasonable thing given you're talking about encrypted PHI... it's some extra $ for a considerable reduction to overall attack surface when processing the most sensitive type of personal data. I don't think this meets OP's definition of "wrong".

In practical terms I don't agree that the threat of someone doing all of the following things is worth worrying about (in comparison to many other more likely failures): 1) determine what physical hardware in aws the target is running code on 2) somehow get the aws virtual machine manager to let the attacker run their malicious code on the same hardware 3) somehow pierce the protections of the virtual machine to read…

> In practical terms I don't agree that the threat of someone doing all of the following things is worth worrying about

In AWS case, this is an AWS rule about when they will sign a HIPAA BAA, even though there is no HIPAA regulation that specifically prohibits the arrangement at issue. AWS clearly thinks it is worth worrying about.

When you run your own public cloud, you can determine what risks are worth accepting potential liability for.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#173

Post by opo »

hx87 wrote: post #117
sharemywin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is does regulatory capture always happen?

It tends to happen when the following are true: a) Previous government experience is highly valuable in private sector employees b) Government pay is less than this value b) affects regulatory capture in two ways: it allows civil servants the opportunity to get massive raises by going private (and incentivises them to be nice to future employers) and cripples the recruitment of highly talented individuals who are les…

That covers materialist capture, but there is also non-materialist capture:

>Materialist capture, also called financial capture, in which the captured regulator's motive is based on its material self-interest. This can result from bribery, revolving doors, political donations, or the regulator's desire to maintain its government funding. These forms of capture often amount to political corruption. Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry. Another distinction can be made between capture retained by big firms and by small firms.[11] While Stigler mainly referred, in his work,[12] to large firms capturing regulators by bartering their vast resources (materialist capture) - small firms are more prone to retain non-materialist capture via a special underdog rhetoric.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#174

Post by Domenic_S »

marricks wrote: post #169
Animats wrote: post #131

From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…

For the Tesla comment, what more could you expect from them right now? If you have auto pilot on your hands have to be on the wheel or it vibrates and then it starts slowing down e eventually since it knows it's not safe. People can work around any system for this, but stuff like this makes it have to do it consciously. Seems pretty reasonable on Tesla's part.

Not totally accurate. You actually get two warnings before autopilot disengages. You have to put a hand (not hands) on the wheel at certain intervals, but you certainly can be hands-off a majority of the time.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#175

Post by vkou »

ticklemyelmo wrote: post #109
owyn wrote: post #79

It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are: • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecurity • Human Machine Interface • Crashworthiness • Consumer Education and Training • Registration and Certi cation • Post-Crash Behavior • Federal, State and Local Laws • Ethical Considerations • Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc) • Object and Event Dete…

The cynic in me immediately interpreted "Post-Crash Behavior" as the exact opposite priority from "Privacy".

If you are driving a modern car, it has a blackbox that records accident data.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#176

Post by ben_jones »

marricks wrote: post #169
Animats wrote: post #131

From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…

For the Tesla comment, what more could you expect from them right now? If you have auto pilot on your hands have to be on the wheel or it vibrates and then it starts slowing down e eventually since it knows it's not safe. People can work around any system for this, but stuff like this makes it have to do it consciously. Seems pretty reasonable on Tesla's part.

They'd never do it but I imagine a system that was loud, flashy, and embarrassing, that activated when autopilot is misused (i.e. auto-pilot is demanding user intervention and intervention is not given) would be most effective in incentivizing drivers to change their behavior.

I.e. a loud beeping noise that annoyed pedestrians and other drivers until you took the wheel. Kind of like how accidentally triggering your car alarm in the parking lot will lead to a very hasty correction on your part.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#177

Post by vkou »

more_corn wrote: post #163
danharaj wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There's been a decades-long smear campaign against public management of common infrastructure.

What do you call a smear campaign against a target that's actually incompetent?

What do you call an indiscriminate smear campaign against a large target, parts of which are incompetent, and parts of which are competent?

"Self-serving"?

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#178

Post by rhino369 »

marricks wrote: post #169
Animats wrote: post #131

From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…

For the Tesla comment, what more could you expect from them right now? If you have auto pilot on your hands have to be on the wheel or it vibrates and then it starts slowing down e eventually since it knows it's not safe. People can work around any system for this, but stuff like this makes it have to do it consciously. Seems pretty reasonable on Tesla's part.

They don't have to implement SAE 2 and if their implementation isn't safe, doing the best they can might not be good enough.

I think there may be a fundamental flaw with lane keeping. It removes the driver from doing anything but still requires constant vigilance. That might be asking too much. My ADD is too strong to wach the road without having to do any part of the driving. I suspect a lot of people are the same way.

If most drivers are just keeping their hand on the wheel while day dreaming, Telsa should be forced to just disable the feature until the tech is ready for Level 3. Or use the Level 2 tech as a backup only.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#179

Post by Domenic_S »

ben_jones wrote: post #176
marricks wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the Tesla comment, what more could you expect from them right now? If you have auto pilot on your hands have to be on the wheel or it vibrates and then it starts slowing down e eventually since it knows it's not safe. People can work around any system for this, but stuff like this makes it have to do it consciously. Seems pretty reasonable on Tesla's part.

They'd never do it but I imagine a system that was loud, flashy, and embarrassing, that activated when autopilot is misused (i.e. auto-pilot is demanding user intervention and intervention is not given) would be most effective in incentivizing drivers to change their behavior. I.e. a loud beeping noise that annoyed pedestrians and other drivers until you took the wheel. Kind of like how accidentally triggering your c…

The car already cuts the stereo for a moment and beeps at you. If you ignore the first warning, it mutes the stereo and beeps until you resolve the situation.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#180

Post by opo »

revscat wrote: post #20
e40 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.

And is the fundamental belief of libertarians: that governments can do nothing right, either morally or pragmatically.

No that is simply not true. Just because someone doesn't think that the war on drugs is a good idea or that prostitution should not be criminalized, etc. doesn't mean they think "governments can do nothing right"

libertarians != anarchists

Post reply on HN