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

Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#181

Post by brookst »

sgerenser wrote: post #140
bombcar wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some places where Apple still thinks I'm driving through a cornfield even though the development is a few years old, now. I suppose I could inform them somehow, but it's not worth the bother.

I’m still amazed at the people who claim that Apple Maps is as good as Google Maps nowadays. If you live anywhere where there’s lots of development, it’s definitely not. It’s also terrible when businesses or places of interest move. My wife’s business moved a half mile down the road and a single message to google maps got it moved in a couple days. Apple Maps took about a year with multiple requests and even multiple…

Agree that Google does a much better job of pulling in latest road and business info, even in the US, even in California, even in Cupertino.

But if you’re not going to some brand new addeess on a road that didn’t exist six months ago, Apple maps are just so much more readable and usable. Sucks thst the fata isn’t as good, but damn does it show what a difference colors, fonts, and tasteful selection of what to show and what to hide nakes,

I routinely have to drop into Google maps (international travel, and some newly developed areas) and it always feels like time travel to a 90’s website. Except for the whole “data is current” thing.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#182

Post by brookst »

doright wrote: post #160
Animats wrote: post #2

That's a tough problem - distinguishing wet pavement from deep water. Humans make that mistake frequently. Autonomous vehicles should probably be equipped with a water sensor. (We did that in our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle back in 2005). Then they can enter water very cautiously and see if it's too deep. This may make them too cautious about shallow puddles on roads, though.

Reminds me of all the Waymo vehicles stalled during that San Francisco blackout a while ago. I have always believed that when people cite statistics on Waymos beating human drivers on safety statistics, that is only in the case of the happy path, or "happy road". The safety statistics could plummet in specific scenarios that lack training data or forethought, and they could crop up at any time.

There must be a term for this fallacy.

“I’d rather survive 100% of the time in situations that happen 0.01% of the time than survive 99.9999@ of the time in situations that arise 99.99% of the time”

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#183

Post by brookst »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #65
amluto wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By a water sensor do you mean a sensor to detect the water level relative to the chassis? It seems like a very inexpensive downward-facing ultrasound sensor could work.

When you're going 35 mph and suddenly hit a 2 ft deep puddle (I've done this), that sensor isn't going to help at all.

Going 35mph into water of uncertain depth is a bad strategy. Even well equipped jeeps approach potentially-deep water at like 5mph.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#184

Post by red75prime »

jjjfjjgd wrote: post #149
cryptoegorophy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they oppose each other? Which one do you trust?

Google ”Sensor fusion”.

Also google "sensitivity-specificity tradeoff." Initiating emergency braking when at least one sensor detects a pedestrian has the highest sensitivity, but the worst specificity. The real trolley problem of self-driving: how many spilled drinks and read-end collisions society is willing to tolerate to save one life.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#185

Post by IdiotSavage »

scott_w wrote: post #177
nostrebored wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but humans are terrible at the happy path. I’d take 20% safer on the happy path over 40% less safe in unforeseen circumstances. The failure mode being “stopped car” is also not that bad.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy. There’s the third part which is “foreseen but challenging circumstances.” Also, “stopped car” can be VERY bad in many circumstances. Stopped on lane 2 of a motorway, stopped in running water, stopped in snow. Also I suspect many “unforeseen” circumstances happen regularly. The unforeseen part is “what” and “when.”

... stopped on a railroad track.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/waymo-trai...

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#186

Post by awesomeMilou »

Animats wrote: post #2

That's a tough problem - distinguishing wet pavement from deep water. Humans make that mistake frequently. Autonomous vehicles should probably be equipped with a water sensor. (We did that in our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle back in 2005). Then they can enter water very cautiously and see if it's too deep. This may make them too cautious about shallow puddles on roads, though.

Because of the replies, I can't tell if this post is dripping with sarcasm or not.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#187

Post by acd »

But as soon as what happens is an unusual event that is not in training data it get dangerous.

Think of any abnormal weather events that would make news headlines such as Lightning, blizzard, snow storms etc

This need to be simulated

Or the litmus test would the developers ride in such a product at such an event?

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#189

Post by tialaramex »

mindslight wrote: post #173
tialaramex wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, people are bad at guessing and the usual "Plan continuation bias" kicks in. I was travelling in a group to eat lunch with friends once, after heavy rains. We reached a site where the road needs to fit under a bridge and is known to flood, there's standing water, and the driver figured it's probably not too high, he drives in and nope, water over the air intake, bye bye engine and we walked the rest of the way t…

I love the irony of how you wrote this comment. You say bye bye engine, and then the very next action is to walk to lunch. No mention of what happened to the car, or whether the driver had to stay and deal with it. Nope, the most significant effect on you was that you had to continue on without the car in the picture. Hunger is the real plan continuation bias.

We all took off our shoes and socks and waded to dry land, then walked to lunch, arriving late and damp. A specialist recovery company moved the dead car to a repair yard and later the mechanics replaced the engine I think?

The bias isn't really about hunger, humans just tend to stick to an existing plan even once available evidence suggests that plan can't work, that's why those "Low bridge, divert" signs are less effective than you'd expect, why Olivia Rodrigo's "Fuck it, it's fine" is so recognisable for relationships, and why pilots end up scud running in a little plane after setting off in marginal visual conditions.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#190

Post by xethos »

bombcar wrote: post #147
stavros wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how they don't notice thousands of users driving through these "cornfields" at 60mph every day, though. You'd have thought that'd raise some alert?

I’ve literally watched my car (only car around) trigger the yellow heavy traffic warning (because I was driving slow to look for something). Yet thousands of cars doing 60 mph through a cornfield and over a river doesn’t trigger a “maybe a freeway was built here?”

Advertising slightly heavier traffic isn't the worst thing in the world. Telling hundreds of motorists "There's a navigable road here" when there isn't, is a bigger problem, for both Apple's PR team, and the motorists in question

Verifying indepenantly is probably the reasonable response

Post reply on HN