211–220 of 244 posts
"Move fast and break things" is exactly the opposite of what a responsible driver must do.
I've been joking for at least a year that Uber's motto is "move fast and break people". I'm saddened that this has come to pass but not surprised.
https://jalopnik.com/safety-third-is-the-running-joke-at-ube...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, it does assume that. I happen to think that's true, but it's a separate argument, and one worth having. Humans are really quite bad at driving, so I think a conservative estimate is that autonomous vehicles could cut road deaths by at least 90%. Cars are killing by the millions now, so do the math, and I'm willing to tolerate a lot of deaths in the process, contingent on the deaths actually helping researchers a…
> What's the alternative position? Developing and testing the technology in actual test scenarios (build entire testing cities and fill them up with paid stuntmen and -women, if necessary) instead of in public, until you're able to prove that the tech is statistically at least as safe as human drivers. After that, you can continue testing in public, provided that you deal with any changes to your system responsibly a…
> We don't need redundant brakes & steering or a fancy new car; we need better software," wrote engineer Anthony Levandowski Any engineer with this attitude needs to learn the lesson of the Therac-25. The issues in the Ars article are very similar to section 4 "Causal Factors" of the report[1]. > To get to that better software faster we should deploy the first 1000 cars asap. Is that admitting that they do not have t…
He is clearly right about that. Human-driven cars are safety critical and already do fine without redundant brakes and steering. How many crashes are due to brake or steering failure? I'm guessing it's well under 10%.
Most human crashes are due to bad driving, and for computers it will be the same. I mean, even this fatal crash probably could have been prevented with better software. It's not like the brakes failed. They just weren't applied.
> To get to that better software faster we should deploy the first 1000 cars asap.
This is where he is totally mad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to have SERIOUS evidence for the claim that autonomous driving will actually be safer than human driving one day to even attempt to make this argument of yours. "Faith in technology" is not "evidence"! If your faith is strong enough, you'll surely be welcome if you sign away all of your rights and serve as irrational traffic participant in a city where self-driving cars are tested. You could run through the…
I'm already doing it all day for human drivers to no benefit at all. I am pretty convinced that computers have the potential to outperform humans in this, but I'm not really interested in hashing out the debate here; the arguments have all been made more elegantly elsewhere. Though I don't know why you keep ascribing 'faith' to me. I never brought that dirty word up. I reasoned my way into my positions.
In that case, what do you base your assumption on that self-driving cars will be able to deal with the complexities of todays' traffic in a significantly safer way than humans? Because even though you might not bring that word up, if you just assume that to be the case because you expect technology will one day be able to make that wish come true, that IS "faith" in technology. Whether you like that word or not doesn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it has nothing to do with ML? You see a point cloud that's moving toward your lane at a speed estimate of say 2 mph. If that's below the sensor noise threshold, you might classify the cloud as a stationary object on the other lane (say a stranded car). In that case, by the time you realize that this stationary object has somehow moved itself into your own lane, it is already too late.
You slow down anyways, because it will almost always improve the situation and reduce your liability. Secondly, if the vision is so bad that it can't identify objects in its lane or predict vectors, it's not ready for the real world.
Set "too tightly", it will also have you slowing for every car approaching a stop sign from a side street.
Cars that randomly slow out of an excess of caution are also a hazard to other road users. Don't believe that? Go drive for a month and set a series of alarms on your phone every 5-10 minutes. Everytime the phone goes off, abruptly slow to half of your prior speed. Do you think you'd make 1,000 miles without causing a road hazard or collision?
I have two problems with this article. 1) They make it appear that Uber is a car manufacturer. 2) Even though Uber has not been determined to be at fault, the author seems to want to make it that way anyway.
The article addresses your second point: "Indeed, it's entirely possible to imagine a self-driving car system that always follows the letter of the law—and hence never does anything that would lead to legal finding of fault—but is nevertheless way more dangerous than the average human driver. Indeed, such a system might behave a lot like Uber's cars do today." It doesn't matter if Uber makes cars that are technically…
"Uber announced that it had driven 2 million miles by December 2017 and is probably up to around 3 million miles today. If you do the math, that means that Uber's cars have killed people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States." Wow there goes that "safer than human drivers" argument.
Driverless cars are also being tested in relatively nice driving conditions. People, on the other hand, drive in all sorts of conditions. X deaths per Y easy driving miles is going to translate to many more than X deaths per Y representative driving miles.
I would add that people represent (as a whole) various kind of drivers, including the non-expert/fresh licensed, the elderly, the too sure of themselves, those speeding or not respecting road signals (or driving in connection with a crime), the emotionally fragile, those under the effect of alcohol or drugs, those tired by not having had enough sleep, etc., etc.
The "model" for an autonomous vehicle should be instead a particular "perfect" subset, ideally it should replicate the behaviour of an hypothetical extremely prudent, healthy 30-something with some experience with safe driving, very familiar with the way his/her car handles, having had a nice night sleep, no use of alcohol or drugs, without any external pressure (to arrive in time, to do other chores apart driving) without a cellphone or tablet distracting him/her.
If we could find this latter kind of drivers (should they actually exist) and isolate from the statistics the amount of incidents they caused, that would be the reference benchmark.
"Uber recently placed an order for 24,000 Volvo cars that will be modified for driverless operation. Delivery is scheduled to start next year." Wow. The other driverless car players should be all over this lobbying to shut Uber down. If Uber massively deploys a commercial service with subpar quality in order to "win", and then those cars start getting into accidents, the entire field is going to be delayed by 10 year…
Could Uber be doing this on purpose? They're way behind on self-driving tech, so maybe if they can't have it, no one can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument assumes that autonomous drivers will be safer than human drivers. Which is an unproven proposition. It is possible that autonomous driving may never be safer, or that the rate of improvement may be much slower than expected. How many "more deaths today" do you think are reasonable to test this question? One? ten? one thousand? ten thousand?
Yea, it does assume that. I happen to think that's true, but it's a separate argument, and one worth having. Humans are really quite bad at driving, so I think a conservative estimate is that autonomous vehicles could cut road deaths by at least 90%. Cars are killing by the millions now, so do the math, and I'm willing to tolerate a lot of deaths in the process, contingent on the deaths actually helping researchers a…
For the sake of the discussion, let us assume that this is hyperbole and that "happily" was an infelicitous word choice. That said it raises a few questions:
- Uber and the other companies presumably are developing this technology for their own private benefit and do not plan to make it "available to everyone". In which case, how many deaths are acceptable?
- Should they be successful and succeed in developing a safe autonomous driving system should they be compelled to make it "available to everyone"?
- Are these million doomed citizens volunteers with informed consent or are they to be struck down unawares at random?
- What if the technology proves more difficult to develop than you anticipate? Suppose that after one million are sacrificed for the greater good it is improved but not yet good enough. Should we then continue with another million or should we abandon the project after only one million fruitless deaths?
- Assuming success, should we then ban human driven vehicles completely?
[edited for formating]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You slow down anyways, because it will almost always improve the situation and reduce your liability. Secondly, if the vision is so bad that it can't identify objects in its lane or predict vectors, it's not ready for the real world.
This will have you unexpectedly slowing for road signs, guardrails, and other stationary objects on the side of the road when they are on the inside of a curve (as they will have apparent motion towards your lane) Set "too tightly", it will also have you slowing for every car approaching a stop sign from a side street. Cars that randomly slow out of an excess of caution are also a hazard to other road users. Don't be…