Live data from Hacker News

Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

static.googleusercontent.com

1–10 of 83 posts

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#3
The humans do seem to drive a little crazy on California St. in Mountain View! I've had a near miss with a negligent driver on that street myself. Nice to see that they're moving the cars away from the quieter (more suburban) southern parts of the city near the hospital.

I have yet to see the new prototypes, which are allegedly making tours as well. Does anyone know what streets they frequent?

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#4
post #3

The humans do seem to drive a little crazy on California St. in Mountain View! I've had a near miss with a negligent driver on that street myself. Nice to see that they're moving the cars away from the quieter (more suburban) southern parts of the city near the hospital. I have yet to see the new prototypes, which are allegedly making tours as well. Does anyone know what streets they frequent?

The new ones drive on San Antonio quite frequently, making the loop near Central Expressway.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#5
I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage.

Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule.

AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear end collision, the AV would honk and flash brake lights while scooting forward.

Google's absolutely correct that its AVs are never at fault in any of these accidents, legally speaking. Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to?

The AV yields to those running a red light, even though getting t-boned wouldn't legally be the AV's fault. That seems wise to me. Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear-ended? I'm not sure...

Or, more broadly: How do you divide blame between two parties when one has superhuman faculties? Is the AI responsible for everything it could have conceivably been programmed to prevent? Or do you just hold it to a human standard?

Like all hard problems, neither extreme is very satisfying.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#6
The thing that really stands out here isn't that the accidents occurred (which is sort of amusing), but rather the excellent analytics the car produced. The car knew where it was, how long it was stopped, the conditions at the time of the accident, and the relative velocities of the vehicle that caused the accident. This is going to change the nature of automobile accidents entirely. The amount of data we'll be able to collect from even the simplest fender bender will be fantastic.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#7
post #3

The humans do seem to drive a little crazy on California St. in Mountain View! I've had a near miss with a negligent driver on that street myself. Nice to see that they're moving the cars away from the quieter (more suburban) southern parts of the city near the hospital. I have yet to see the new prototypes, which are allegedly making tours as well. Does anyone know what streets they frequent?

I saw one on Rengstorff the other day.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#8
post #2

I have the weird feeling that this report hasn't been written by a human.

Copy Errors Reported to CA Writers Guild

Given the time we’re spending on busy scripts, we’ll inevitably be involved in writing bad copy; sometimes it’s impossible to overcome the realities of speed and deadlines. Thousands of minor creative failures happen every day in typical American copy, 94% of them involving human error, and as many as 55% of them go unreported. (And we think this number is low; for more, see here.) In the six years of our project, we’ve been involved in 14 minor grammatical errors of more than 1.8 million words of autonomous and manual writing combined. Not once was the autonomous writer the cause of the error.

(CA regulations require us to submit CA WG form OL316 Report of Copy Error Involving an Autonomous Writer for all errors involving our writers. The following summaries are what we submitted in the “Copy Error Details” section of that form.)

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#9
post #5

I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear…

> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear end collisions at intersections?

This is called defensive driving. You as a human are supposed to avoid getting killed even in cases where you aren't legally liable. This includes making sure the intersection is clear before going in. It includes checking if anyone is coming down the wrong way of a one way street before going in or crossing it. It involves something as simple as making sure "right lane must turn" actually turned before someone magically appears out of your blind spot.

And, importantly, it also includes knowing what's behind you as much as knowing what's in front of you. If you see someone is going to rear-end you, you should at the very least step off the brake to make the collision less violent. If possible accelerate forward.

And I know this isn't possible [/practical] in most american cars because they're automatics, but don't hold the brake when you're standing still. It makes potential rear-endings work out better. And never turn the wheel before you intend to turn. If you get rear-ended you could get pushed into oncoming traffic.

All this is to say that while only one vehicle is to blame for a collision, two vehicles are responsible. (unless you hit a tree or some other static barrier, a tree cannot drive defensively)

Or, more bluntly, it might be the other person's fault, but you're the one who's dead.

Post reply on HN