Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street • Hacker News Board

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#701

Post by naasking » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:12 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #662

IgorPartola wrote: post #390

This is what's going to happen. If you've ever seen a machine learning algorithm in action, this isn't surprising at all. Basically, they'll behave as expected some well known percentage of the time. But when they don't, the result will not be just a slight deviation from the normal algorithm, but a very unexpected one. So we will have overall a much smaller number of deaths caused by self driving cars, but ones that…

> So we will have overall a much smaller number of deaths caused by self driving cars Why? This is what the self-driving cars industry insists on, but has nowhere near been proven (only BS stats, under ideal conditions, no rain, no snow, selected roads, etc -- and those as reported by the companies itself). I can very well imagine a greater than average human driving AI. But I can also imagine being able to write it…

> This is what the self-driving cars industry insists on, but has nowhere near been proven

Because machines have orders of magnitude fewer failure modes than humans, but with greater efficiency. It's why so much human labour has been automated. There's little reason to think driving will be any different.

You can insist all you like that the existing evidence is under "ideal conditions", but a) that's how humans pass their driving tests too, and b) we've gone from self-driving vehicles being a gleam in someone's eye to actual self-driving vehicles on public roads in less than 10 years. Inclement weather won't take another 10 years.

It's like you're completely ignoring the clear evidence of rapid advancement just because you think it's a hard problem, while the experts actually building these systems expect fully automated transportation fleets within 15 years.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#702

Post by CAT0 » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

ivoras wrote: post #685

jonthepirate wrote: post #415

Former Lyft eng here. From my vantage point, as an industry, we're nowhere near where we should be on the safety side. The tech companies are developing driving tech privately instead of openly. Why can a private for profit company "test" their systems on the public roads? The public is at serious risk of getting run over by hacked and buggy guidance / decision system. Even when a human operator has his hands hoverin…

When regular cars first appeared, were they not tested "live" immediately? And yes, there was FUD even back then, and in parts of the world a backslash which resulted in sometimes silly safety rules. The largest real difference seems to be the speed of communication nowadays, the rate at which public opinion can be manufactured and globally spread.

When regular cars first appeard vehicles had to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.

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

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#703

Post by naasking » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #649

anonu wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree on your premise that we can rationalize humans killing humans - but we cannot do so with machines killing humans. If self-driving cars really are safer in the long-run for drivers and pedestrians - maybe what people need is a better grasp on probability and statistics? And self-driving car companies need to show and publicize the data that backs this claim up to win the trust of the population.

Hm, people are fine with folks getting mauled in an industrial accident, or killed misusing power equipment. So its not purely a machine thing. Maybe because its unexpected - the victim is not involved until they are dead?

The innocent bystander is indeed the reason. People working with machinery accept certain risks.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#704

Post by icc97 » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #662

IgorPartola wrote: post #390

This is what's going to happen. If you've ever seen a machine learning algorithm in action, this isn't surprising at all. Basically, they'll behave as expected some well known percentage of the time. But when they don't, the result will not be just a slight deviation from the normal algorithm, but a very unexpected one. So we will have overall a much smaller number of deaths caused by self driving cars, but ones that…

> So we will have overall a much smaller number of deaths caused by self driving cars Why? This is what the self-driving cars industry insists on, but has nowhere near been proven (only BS stats, under ideal conditions, no rain, no snow, selected roads, etc -- and those as reported by the companies itself). I can very well imagine a greater than average human driving AI. But I can also imagine being able to write it…

If self-driving cars 1. don't read texts whilst driving, 2. don't drink alcohol, 3. stick to the speed limit, 4. keep a 3-4s distance to the car in front, 5. don't drive whilst tired 6. don't jump stop signs / red lights it will solve a majority of crashes and deaths. [0]

The solutions to not killing people whilst driving aren't rocket science but too many humans seem to be incapable of respecting the rules.

[0]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/1...

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#705

Post by davewritescode » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

ivoras wrote: post #685

jonthepirate wrote: post #415

Former Lyft eng here. From my vantage point, as an industry, we're nowhere near where we should be on the safety side. The tech companies are developing driving tech privately instead of openly. Why can a private for profit company "test" their systems on the public roads? The public is at serious risk of getting run over by hacked and buggy guidance / decision system. Even when a human operator has his hands hoverin…

When regular cars first appeared, were they not tested "live" immediately? And yes, there was FUD even back then, and in parts of the world a backslash which resulted in sometimes silly safety rules. The largest real difference seems to be the speed of communication nowadays, the rate at which public opinion can be manufactured and globally spread.

Real cars were an evolution of an existing technology (the carriage). We replaced a horse with an engine and a steering wheel.

In this case have a machine replacing a human and using non deterministic algorithms to do so.

Automated driving ONLY makes sense on specific, well mapped, sensor enabled, pedestrian free roads. Let’s focus on that use case before we let these things take over our towns and cities.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#706

Post by manmal » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:15 PM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #692

cbhl wrote: post #675

The last time I visited Phoenix, I recall being shocked at far apart traffic lights were in the city. Between the Wal-marts and the giant four-to-six bedroom homes, it might be normal to see a major street have a mile between traffic lights (and presumably, crosswalks). It was very different from, say, driving in New York, San Francisco or Seattle. I'd be curious whether "walking outside of the crosswalk" turns out t…

I hope they aren't expecting people to only appear at intersections: "The California Vehicle Code says you can actually cross any street as long as you aren't a hazard to vehicles. It is also legal to cross mid-block when you're not between two intersections with signals." [1] The article points out that LA has a different rule. Uber's going to need to geofence locations and use different rulesets for different citie…

Sure, but it’s illegal in most countries (AFAIK also in the US) to not use a crosswalk when you are in the vicinity of one. Eg in Austria you will be fined (or worse, drivers license suspended) if you don’t use a crosswalk that is within 50m of you.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#707

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

thereare5lights wrote: post #402

apeace wrote: post #366

I'm really shocked at the trend in comments here. Yes, we get it. Fatalities will happen sometimes, they are unavoidable sometimes, and what matters in the long run is if we can achieve a significant overall reduction in fatalities. But my god, a person was just killed by a computer. Can't we have some compassion and humility? Let's, as a community, set the standard for how we will react to these events. Let's make s…

> Can't we do better? no. there's a reason our community has the reputation of being heartless. it's because it's true.

[deleted]

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#708

Post by danso » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #692

cbhl wrote: post #675

The last time I visited Phoenix, I recall being shocked at far apart traffic lights were in the city. Between the Wal-marts and the giant four-to-six bedroom homes, it might be normal to see a major street have a mile between traffic lights (and presumably, crosswalks). It was very different from, say, driving in New York, San Francisco or Seattle. I'd be curious whether "walking outside of the crosswalk" turns out t…

I hope they aren't expecting people to only appear at intersections: "The California Vehicle Code says you can actually cross any street as long as you aren't a hazard to vehicles. It is also legal to cross mid-block when you're not between two intersections with signals." [1] The article points out that LA has a different rule. Uber's going to need to geofence locations and use different rulesets for different citie…

Seems like the law is more vehicle-friendly in AZ:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/09/...

> According to Arizona law, pedestrians are supposed to cross within marked crosswalks, or at unmarked crosswalks at intersections. An unmarked crosswalk is the location where two roadways intersect but no marked crosswalk is present, for instance in a residential neighborhood. Jaywalking is technically crossing "between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation." In this instance, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

But why would state-by-state (or city) geofencing be needed for this situation? Seems like pedestrian safety would be prioritized regardless of whether the pedestrian seems to be committing jaywalking. Is there a situation in which the AI shouldn't attempt to brake if a large object appears in the street in front of it? And how big of a factor would local laws play?

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#709

Post by davewritescode » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #666

jonthepirate wrote: post #415

Former Lyft eng here. From my vantage point, as an industry, we're nowhere near where we should be on the safety side. The tech companies are developing driving tech privately instead of openly. Why can a private for profit company "test" their systems on the public roads? The public is at serious risk of getting run over by hacked and buggy guidance / decision system. Even when a human operator has his hands hoverin…

> Why can a private for profit company "test" their systems on the public roads? Because at some point, it's literally not possible to test something that's ultimately intended for use on public roads anywhere but public roads. Or, to put it in terms that would be more familiar to developers, "you can test all you want in QA, but prod is the ultimate test of whether your code really works". As mentioned downthread, t…

This is what it means when politicians say they’re cutting red tape. They’re letting industry do whatever the fuck they want at the expense of everyone.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#710

Post by DennisAleynikov » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

pcthrowaway wrote: post #65

The people leading the development should demonstrate that they can stop for pedestrians by personally jumping out in front of them on a closed test road. If they're not able to demonstrate this, they shouldn't be putting them on public roads.

human driven cars are currently, as we speak running people over on the streets and they have human drivers who don't particularly want to run over other humans. It was inevitable that this happened, and no matter how many people self driving cars run over will be worth it, since it will still be less than what cars are currently doing in terms of death toll.