Uber Vehicle Saw But Ignored Woman It Struck, Report Says (engadget.com)

gollum123 writes: Uber has reportedly discovered that the fatal crash involving one of its prototype self-driving cars was probably caused by software faultily set up to ignore objects in the road, sources told The Information. Specifically, it was that the system was set up to ignore objects that it should have attended to; Herzberg seems to have been detected but considered a false positive.

Comments

So who is to blame?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Who is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, here?

Re:So who is to blame?

[mea_culpa]

Probably the person playing on their phone as it was their job to override decisions made by buggy software.

Also the video Uber released is highly altered. I drive on that street frequently and it is very well lit.

Re:So who is to blame?

[bluefoxlucid]

If the purpose is to test, you can't disconnect it before it makes a mistake.

Yes you can. Hitting the brakes when the car doesn't expect it would cause it to evaluate what's going on. Did it identify an obstacle? Did it identify a possible not-obstacle? Did it expect to need to react, but not judge the condition as resolved yet (someone's up the road 250 feet, and you've got plenty of distance at 50 feet, so you wait to see if they move and possibly slow down at 150 feet to prepare--condition is resolving into a single probable outcome as you approach)?

The car can even report that, yes, it saw the obstacle, but intended to brake slightly-later than the driver due to requiring 20 feet to stop and having 90 feet, and being at this point tended to react with twice or 50 feet more than the required stopping distance. Thus you can go back and review the discrepancies, and then notate to the car whether its projected response was inadequate (adapt) or the driver was just more-cautious and the projected response was acceptable (notate, but no change necessary).

Build an artificial test environment first, let it run for virtual giga car-years

Artificial environments can overlearn artificial behaviors. Even people who drive in real cities suddenly can't cope with the task of driving when they move the next state over--it's like they don't know how to drive at all, or maybe everybody else never learned to drive right.

Re:So who is to blame?

[bluefoxlucid]

Punishment is not justice, and justice does not right a wrong. Don't be so eager to swing an axe just because you yourself feel bad about this situation. That is just selfish. Instead, let's figure out the right way to react to the injustice that took place here, barring any prejudice.

I actually proposed a Constitutional Amendment. Working on the language.

The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.

To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, none shall be confined against his will except as necessary for the security of the public, and such confinement shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the confined as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.

Re:So who is to blame?

[barc0001]

> Probably the person playing on their phone as it was their job to override decisions made by buggy software.

I dunno, looking at the video of the crash, the victim crossed the road outside of a crosswalk and wasn't even LOOKING in the direction of potential traffic. I'd assign the lion's share of the blame to the person who literally walked into the path of a brightly lit car without noticing.

Re:So who is to blame?

[sexconker]

Try watching a CNC machine with you hand hovering over the e-stop button, see how long you last. I guarantee you, it won't be an 8 hour shift of alert watching.

I'd probably go 12 hours or more. I love watching those things work.

Re:So who is to blame?

[vivian]

When I drive and see a possible danger (kid playing with a ball by the side of the road, dog wandering around near the edge of the road without a leash, motorcycle rider looking the wrong way on a side street as I approach, etc.) I always take my foot off the accelerator and cover the break - ready to instantly respond if something stupid happens. It's called defensive driving, and is how everyone should drive.
I never really picked up this habit though until I had been riding motorbikes for a while, when you absolutely have to drive defensively id you want to survive commuting in London or Tokyo traffic. (I used to ride in both).

The safety driver should have been doing this, and it would not be any impediment to testing the autonomy of the car - it can still do the driving, but the safety driver would have had time to react appropriately.
The safety driver completely failed in her duty - possibly due to lack of training - but if your getting paid to be a safety driver then you should do your job instead of buggering around with your phone.

Oh good.

[Ichijo]

The autonomous programming detects items around the vehicle and operators fine-tune its sensitivity to make sure it only reacts to true threats (solid objects instead of bags, for example).

Then it's an easy fix. Just move the "sensitivity" slider a little to the left.

Actually, it's kind of terrifying that all that stands between life and death is a sensitivity setting.

Re:Oh good.

[Carewolf]

The autonomous programming detects items around the vehicle and operators fine-tune its sensitivity to make sure it only reacts to true threats (solid objects instead of bags, for example).

Then it's an easy fix. Just move the "sensitivity" slider a little to the left.

Actually, it's kind of terrifying that all that stands between life and death is a sensitivity setting.

It is not the setting that is the problem. The problem is socalled AIs with less intelligence than a cockroach being put behind the wheel of cars.

Too large!

[HornWumpus]

I understand that programmatically telling a blowing plastic bag from a child's toy is difficult.

But she (and her bike) were clearly large enough to damage the vehicle. Even if the code saw her as debris, the car should have avoided it.

I think the code had to have dismissed her as lens flair or something similar.