Slashdot Mirror
People Are Losing Faith In Self-Driving Cars Following Recent Fatal Crashes (mashable.com)
oldgraybeard shares a report from Mashable: A new survey (PDF) released Tuesday by the American Automobile Association found that 73 percent of American drivers are scared to ride in an autonomous vehicle. That figure is up 10 percent from the end of last year. The millennial demographic has been the most affected, according to the survey of more than 1,000 drivers. From that age group, 64 percent said they're too afraid to ride in an autonomous vehicle, up from 49 percent -- making it the biggest increase of any age group surveyed.
"There are news articles about the trust levels in self-driving cars going down," writes oldgraybeard. "As a technical person, I have always thought the road to driverless cars would be longer than most were talking about. What are your thoughts? As an individual with eye problems, I do like the idea. But technology is not as good as some think."
The Mashable article also references a separate study from market research company Morning Consult "showing increased fear about self-driving vehicles following the deadly March crashes in the Bay Area and Arizona." Another survey from car shopping site CarGurus set to be released Wednesday found that car owners aren't quite ready to trade their conventional vehicles for self-driving ones. "Some 84 percent of the 1,873 U.S. car owners surveyed in April said they were unlikely to own a self-driving car in the next five years," reports Mashable. "79 percent of respondents said they were not excited about the new technology."
The Mashable article also references a separate study from market research company Morning Consult "showing increased fear about self-driving vehicles following the deadly March crashes in the Bay Area and Arizona." Another survey from car shopping site CarGurus set to be released Wednesday found that car owners aren't quite ready to trade their conventional vehicles for self-driving ones. "Some 84 percent of the 1,873 U.S. car owners surveyed in April said they were unlikely to own a self-driving car in the next five years," reports Mashable. "79 percent of respondents said they were not excited about the new technology."
How many crashes happen every day because of humans? Yes I know it is sad, no one wants bad things to happen. But in the long run this is going to save far more lives than take.
1000's are killed daily by other humans and they keep driving. A few are potentially killed by self driving cars and that makes them bad....
People are such morons!
Self driving cars will save 1000's of people daily!!
Show me the statistics, not the emotion-laden stories. I'll bet money that self-driving cars are safer now and will be even safer in the future. Id love to have one, just can't afford it.
There is way too much starry-eyed magical thinking about tech in general at the moment. AI this and machine learning that...you would think people's day to day interactions with their phone assistants would get people to quickly understand things are still fledgling, but apparently not.
I'm in favour of developing the technology. And very, very much in favour of not overhyping it to destruction.
People always fear dangers that they can't control more than ones they can. This is why some people fear plane and train crashes more than car crashes, even though cars are statistically a lot more dangerous. A self-driving car will have to have a much better accident rate than human ones. It's easy for people to say "that's average but I am much better than average" if they are in control.
Technology is purely driven by geeks who over estimate their ability to control everything through technology. These are people who see human's as inferior drivers who make too many mistakes. Yet, the technology in auto piloting vehicles is directly programmed by humans? We begin to see a pattern where human's may make mistakes but their abilities are hard to copy with technology.
I was just having to tell someone the other day that "those auto pilot cars" don't just drive everywhere for you yet.
Not surprising, when news headlines are like "Yet again, people die in a Tesla with auto pilot" when it isn't even turned on.
The damage to the reputation appears to be mainly done by one manufacture (all or most of these fatal crashes appear to have been in Tesla cars), and these cars are not really self driving, they have advanced driver assistance features that the manufacture is leaving to the customers to test and customers are abusing. I'm not sure I like the idea of self-driving cars yet but over time I am sure they will become far safer than human drivers.
So, a spare of stories in the media designed to scare people, succeeded in scaring people. Thus the tremendous power of the media. This isn't news.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The link is to a local file, not net-accessible....
How about some posts about how many HUNDEREDS die in GM or Ford cars?
Little bit of balance for whoever on here's got it in for tesla.
The old stories referenced are for a Tesla on "Autopilot" (stupid name) and a pedestrian stepping out into traffic and getting (sadly but unsurprisingly) run down. In both cases the human driver is clearly at fault.
Get back to me when truly "autonomous" cars are (a) on the road and (b) killing more people than sleepy or drunk humans.
This exactly. We should almost explore the potential benefits of new technology, but also be critical of it.
If you look at how many people have smartphones now... Almost everybody. So many zombies that it is scary.
And the golden rule that all software has bugs, and commercial software in particular.
We let our customers do beta testing without their knowing about it...
When "It compiles! Ship it!" becomes "It compiles! Let it drive autonomously!" we are not doing the right rhing.
I imagine civilians lost a lot of faith in 'aeroplanes' after they dropped a bunch of bombs on them during ww2. After a bunch of test pilots died because parachutes hadn't been invented yet. After a bunch of barnstormers died pushing the limits of airplane controls. After an endless procession of adverse weather, mundane mechanical failures, and human errors.
The bugs were worked out, pilot training was drastically improved, and it was figured out what was needed for safe flight. And now commercial air travel is far safer than the automobile trip to the airport. Wait, automotives are crazy dangerous, and one of the leading causes of death, yet lots of people drive them around on public roads for fun.
Public opinion on self-driving cars will change once the bugs are worked out and it's figured out how to make it safe. Just like with planes and automobiles, it will likely take a few decades to really figure it all out, though. Hint: Google has been working on their self-driving-car tech since 2009.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The right question to ask is : would you prefer to ride in a self-driven car, or with a drunken driver ? and with a very tired driver ?
Never had it from the gitgo.
There is never one moment in the history of self-driving cars where anyone thought it was a good idea. Real people are smart enough to know that a computer program can't react intelligently to anything. It can only react the way it was programmed to react. Computers lack reasoning and judgment. Everyone knows this.
Self driving cars will NEVER be a thing. Okay? Let's just say it. It really is time to stop wasting our resources on trying to automate something that requires split-second reasoning and judgment, just so people can be more addicted to their phones.
I do industrial automation for a living, since about 2000. There's a certain class of automation problem where getting to a 90% solution is easy, getting to 95% takes a lot of work, and getting to 97% is extremely hard. That is, 90% of the parts coming down the assembly line are easy to categorize correctly, the next 5% you can do with a lot of effort, and so on. Unfortunately that last 2 or 3% are damn near impossible due to problems with how good our sensors are, or how good our algorithms are, or how good our mechanical sorting solutions are.
These problems are notorious for causing run-on projects that slurp up money but never end. That's because your initial effort appears to produce amazing results - 90% with almost no effort. How hard can the remaining 10% be? My first encounter with one of these problems was a barcode-reading system at an industrial facility reading barcoded tags with a camera instead of a barcode reader. The problem was that the barcodes were becoming more worn and faded over time, and management believed that if we used a camera instead of a barcode reader we'd be able to enhance the image, etc., and get a good read because clearly a human looking at the picture can clearly see the bars and the human-readable text below it. This project went on for months, and then years, always creeping closer to 100%, but never making that leap to 100%, having thrown several different engineers at the problem and bringing in outside machine vision specialists.
In most cases these problems come from over-estimating the capability of your sensors. A sensor with a little dirt on it suddenly gives the wrong result, or temperature fluctuations mess up the calibration, or the dreaded, "sensor seems to be giving valid values, but they're just wrong for no reason." Even if your sensor values are reliable, in many cases you'll end up with a measurement that doesn't fall clearly into the known-A or known-B range.
That's where "AI" is supposed to save us, but my limited experience with AI shows it falls into the same class of engineering problem: you can quickly build an AI that correctly categorizes 90% of your input correctly, and then with effort you can improve it and improve it some more, but you'll never reach that always-correct answer.
This is where engineering projects fail, because you can always find a manager or an optimistic engineer who can hand-wave away the ambiguity and say, "humans aren't perfect either" and "we can just keep making the AI better and better." That's convenient when you don't put a physical number on it. How good can you make the AI with the available sensors? We know the sensors are in some ways better than human perception, but in other ways they're worse. In what quantitative ways are they worse, and how are you compensating for that?
If I were going to tackle some problem like this, I'd start with a standardized sensor suite and data format. You can't have everyone developing AI based on proprietary sensor data because it's too opaque. You also need to standardize the system output format (accelerator percent, braking percent, steering value, etc.) Plus you need to standardize the parameters of the vehicle. Once you've got that you need to start collecting and publishing this data in this standard format - hundreds of thousands or millions of test case scenarios available for every researcher to use, and in each case you need to have an expert specify what the correct set of outputs should be (or correct range at least) for each scenario. Then you can develop your AI or algorithms and you can then run these through a test suite so your AI has to pass all of these scenarios before it can be certified. As we have crashes then we add to the list of scenarios, and if you make changes to the AI, it has to pass that new scenario and still pass all the old ones.
I get the sense this is what the companies doing research are trying to do, but how do we validate their product? If their databases are proprietary, and their sensor format and data isn't in a standard format, and we can't run the tests ourselves, then how can we trust their systems? Of course we can't.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
2019 will be the Year of the Self-Driving Car on the Black Top.
You want some sort of universal standards for brand new tech like autonomous vehicles?
How the hell is Elon going to make billions if it isnâ(TM)t all proprietary tech when he kills people with his shitty over priced over hyped cars?
First evil Elon should stop lying about his tech. Stop calling it auto pilot. Call it what it is: assisted driving. Until they rename these killers shouldnâ(TM)t even be allowed on public roads.
...people are losing faith in an overhyped, not-ready-for-prime-time technology in the development stages for a task that takes a colossal synthesis of perception, reflexes, maturity, and training (none of which we have systems capable of duplicating yet individually) for which the infrastructure (physical, legal, social) hasn't even begun to be developed, much less matured to the point of implementation?
It's almost like repeatedly INSISTING that "it's almost here" is ACTUALLY an insufficient substitute for real time in development?
Hm.
-Styopa
Two anti-Tesla articles in a row on the front page makes you look like curmudgeons.
People who believe God murders babies on purpose still believe in Jesus.
People kill themselves and others while driving every day. I have no faith in humans.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Uber got into the ride-sharing business, which has sort of morphed into the taxi business. Then along came Google with their plans to make a self-driving car. Uber saw it's future disappearing, and so got into the self-driving car game. They initially did it to give themselves a future, but quickly realised that self-driving cars are actually really, really hard. They then (secretly) pivoted to ensure that SDCs kill a few people so that the public trusts Uber's human drivers a bit longer.
When man first learned to walk someone stumbled into a river and drown, man said let's go back to crawling for a few decades just to be safe.
When man first learned to run someone ran off a cliff, man said let's stop running for a while until we understand cliffs.
When man first learned to ride a horse someone was thrown onto the ground and died of their injures 8 painful days later, man said Carl was an idiot got back on the horse.
When man first learned to ride a chariot someone was impaled on a wall of spikes, we told Carl not so fast!
When man first learned to fly... Stupid Carl! Let's do this Wright.
When man first tried to fly faster than sound... Let's not talk about Carl.
Don't be Carl, understand the statistics of small numbers fallacy.
There's that slur again. Reminder; before using it, replace it with "Jew" and see if it sounds bigoted.
Anybody who was developing "faith" in self driving cars was in trouble from the beginning. They are not a salvation. They are simply a technology that will soon be safer than humans at driving. Along the way they will introduce a whole host of new issues and changes in society and weighing whether the net effect is good or bad will occupy the pundits for a century. And anyone whose "faith" in this technology is strongly affected by the inevitable spurts of progress and setbacks needs to study a little history. We are starting a process that will extend over decades during which autonomous systems will take over driving duties from humans.
"go fast and break things" is not what i want to entrust my life to. the same industry that created things like javascript and default admin passwords on IOT devices should not be handling safety issues.
the technology itself is fine. an artificial neural network can do wonderful things faster than a human, like detect a bicycle in front of a car. the companies running these systems don't seem to care about the finer details that would make the technology more reliable. like Uber, which somehow made a self driving car that couldn't detect a bicycle in front of a car. there are open source image classifiers that can do this, theres no reason Uber couldnt have avoided that crash. they just chose not to care.
they're losing more than "faith"
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
You have to compare things, otherwise I can make anything seem scary dangerous.
Sharks are a great example. One movie and people are terrified of them. But they are basically the same as elephants - more likely to be killed by humans than to kill a human.
E- Cars are horribly dangerous - but they are ALREADY safer than human driven cars.
I guarantee that if you are a parent, of a teenager, or the spouse of someone that drinks alcohol, a self-driving car looks VERY attractive, even today.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
As someone with a vision impairment self driving cars would be truly great.
It is never going to happen in my lifetime. In my teens (almost 20 years ago) it seemed right around the corner...
I am just doomed to be forever isolated and dependent on others.
In QA circles there's a pretty standard distribution that says the first 80% of something will take 20% of your effort. Finishing the last 20% will take 80% of your effort. It's not true for everything, but it's true for quite a lot of things.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
How many crashes happen every day because of humans? Yes I know it is sad, no one wants bad things to happen. But in the long run this is going to save far more lives than take.
Several problems with that argument. 1) you are assuming people are rational when they aren't. 2) People don't care much about the long run. They especially don't care when they are afraid of something (see nuclear power). 3) Your claim that it will save lives is at this point pure conjecture albeit based on reasonable logic. We don't actually have any proof that self driving tech does or will save lives. 4) Certain high profile companies are pushing the technology out there in some arguably irresponsible ways. 5) People tend to trust people more than they trust machines even when that makes no logical sense.
... that doesn't exist yet ?
Fully autonomous vehicles are still several years in the future. Perhaps people are losing faith in Semi-Autonomous vehicles being controlled by ignoramuses who intentionally circumvent the safety features with totally idiotic devices like this: https://www.autopilotbuddy.com/
We climb in a little metal box, hurtle towards another metal box at a closing speed of 200km/hr. Then, to make it safe, we paint a white line on the road and promise to both stay on one side of it. To make life exciting we then add wildlife, children playing, wet weather, tired alcoholics who have just broken up with their wives...
The system is absurd, it is mind blowing that it works as well as it does, but all the band aids like crumple zones, seatbelts and AI steering can't avoid the fact that the system we have evolved is inherently dangerous. Nobody would ever deliberately design a system like our roads and cars.
As an illustration, where I live people working on the side of the road must have a substantial crash barrier to protect them from the oncoming traffic and provide a safe working environment. That same worker can then get on a motorbike and ride home, protected only by a painted line, and nobody thinks anything of it.
This is where autonomous vehicles are going wrong. They need to be GPS capable and have maps in their local computer system. OK, done.
They need to roll this out smarter. They need to start with highway driving. And I'd go as far as to say that it should not be during rush hour traffic or be tied to a database like Waze that knows where there are unexpected delays. Force the driver to drive or pull onto the shoulder!
And then roll out "features" as they master each step. So, take away the manual driving under heavy traffic. Then eventually master the highway.
Then roll out city driving but start in ONE small or area. And master it. Then roll it out to 5 similar areas. And master it. Then roll out to half the USA. Master it. Then unlock full driving.
This whole, works everywhere all at once is asinine!
And beyond that, Google is the company that should be doing the tech. They have all the data already in VERY FAST databases. And as storage gets cheaper, a car could notice a lane closure and notify Google then ALL CARS AUTOMATICALLY KNOW ABOUT IT! Then when the closure goes a way, a car recognizes it and boom, ALL CARS KNOW IT!
This is a HUGE analytics issue more than being able to mount sensors on a car.
I'm mostly pissed at how this technology is being rolled out. The federal government should regulate it in a manner similar to what I described above. And you know what. There should be one company that houses data shared between companies. It should be a public works effort but subcontracted to one company like Google. just like how things like the post office work. This is equally a problem with our government full of old people that have no idea how technology works other than "it works".
I still prefer to be behind the wheel, myself. Luckily I have been on the receiving end -- not the giving end -- of the accidents that I have had (fender bender, rear-ended, meh stuff mostly.
But I can see the value when I need to go through a couple of hours' drive. I mean, sure, I've done it, but when symptoms of fatigue or weariness start showing, then I'd prefer to switch over for safety's sake.
I'll never trust a machine to think for me. AI today isn't even close to earning the "I" in the title, it's a neat collection of heuristics, nothing more. The issue with it is that I took years to get to a level of driving aptitude suitable for me to feel safe after growing out of my more reckless years, no AI is close to that current ability. To compound that, I'm intimately familiar with the software development lifecycle, deadlines, and the drive to portray your product in the most ideal light to clients (more or less in an identical manner to a hooker spraying perfume on her diseased body.) At the end of the day I'm going to trust me being invested in ensuring I don't die a Hell of a lot more than some unknown 9-5 code monkey's heuristic network, that division of trust will only grow wider once regulations get in place to determine the car should preserve the most life (not necessarily mine,) open itself to exploits due to the existence of any networking capability (that one already exists,) or gets abused by governments to clean up dissenters under the radar (e.g. Michael Hastings.) The fact we don't even have anything approaching Human-level artificial intelligence certainly compounds this issue, but in truth I wouldn't trust it any more if it were as smart as me.
TL;DR: Machines are tools, if AI reaches the stage that it is composed entirely of truly autonomous free-thinking entities then I'd trust it to drive, but at that point it won't want to so the point is moot.
I don't quite want a full-time self-driving car, but I'd want a car that will intervene if it senses and accident coming. That includes actively taking over steering... as long as it's not off a cliff to avoid a school bus.
Yeah, same old story. Lots of people still think that cars are safer than airplanes. But what people believe, or disbelieve, doesn't have any effect on reality at all. And the reality is that air travel is far safer than car travel.
The same thing is going to prove to be true of self driving cars. For the same reasons. That is, humans suck at monitoring tasks. And all driving (either an airplane, a bus, a train, or a car) is a group of monitoring tasks.
But right now we are in the novelty phase. Each and every accident involving any level of automated driving is going to make the news. Even while the 35k deaths / year (in the US alone) by non-automated driving have become so commonplace that they hardly ever make the news. And what's in the news today is what has people's attention today.
All that said, isn't it interesting that they seldom bother to put the story in context, which would be fairly easy to do -- report on accidents / deaths per automated driving mile, and compare that to accidents / deaths per human driven mile. Even today, in automated driving's infancy, this is an interesting thing to do.
For the record I'd *much* rather be sharing the road with an auto-drive car than a texting driver. Just sayin'.
Wait until the Millennials find out the AI hype is overblown and they will have to work! [gaspy woke emote]
Ah, life in the bubble. No one but insular engineers and greedy auto moguls envisioning dollar signs ever thought they would work in the first place. A person can't lose something they never had. Software is not a person, and while great for linear automation (far less of our tasks than is currently being presented amongst the pubescent hype and aforementioned dollar signs) it will never 'exceed human ability' in any endeavor that requires spontaneous thought or reaction.. 'AI' will be next on the chopping block, and Silicon Valley will have wasted decades treading waters discovered by others decades ago and squandering the GDP of several small countries. There is nothing brilliant or innovative happening in California anymore.
.
When the AI is 100% certain in what actions it needs to take, this is good. When it has a varying probability driving all its actions the driver must be alerted so they can be aware of the situation and ready to take the wheel. If the AI is not capable of knowing it is being fed bad data or that components of the system are starting to fail, then this system should not be driving any more than you or I should be driving while down and out with the flu. For AI to be successful at something like driving the system must be "self aware" enough as to know if they are "sick" (bad data, failing components) or not. The term "self aware" in a loaded statement, but anything less than a full "self assessment" mode and we will continually be discussing AI's failures to match our expectations.
The sad thing in AI at the moment is that even with complete "Safety aware" feedback in our systems, a properly trained Neural-Net model simply can not tell you why it made a bad decision, and we need to solve that problem before we rely on that technology for the protection of a human life. Redundancy with parallel use of other technologies for self assessment of boundary conditions could go a long way.
The Tesla crash on Crow Canyon Road in Castro Valley must have been spectacular!
The car veered off the road, did not brake (no skid marks in the news video), hit a dirt berm, was launched airborne, flipped over in the air to land on it's rear at the edge of the pond, smashing the rear end, then sliding into the pond. If the driver survived the crash, he was drowned minutes later, maybe even electrocuted in death by the smashed open batteries.
The Tesla Autopilot has a deadly flaw! The software finds a "correct path" to drive the car into, the path is defined maps, painted road lines, distance radar, etc. The problem is when the path is found to be in error and needs to be corrected, which happens on occasions for whatever reason, there are only a few seconds for Autopilot to react and steer the car onto the correct path *OR* slam on the brakes.
Tesla had to make a decision. Do we slam on the brakes every time we find that the car path needs to be corrected? Or do we allow the car to return to the correct path?
If they slam the brakes on every time the car is found to be off of the correct path there are going to a lot of Teslas on autopilot slamming on brakes. For example: a swerve out of a lane -- slamming on the breaks for swerving out of a lane is inappropriate on a freeway. But slamming on the breaks when leaving the lane on a curving canyon road is not inappropriate, in fact it would be life saving.
Now we see these accidents where he car has not braked in life threatening situations. In fact the car is likely never to break correctly unless it has much better awareness of the physical world and can understand the difference between leaving a lane on the freeway and being completely off of the roadway.
Any time new technologies are deployed there are problems.
Consider how many deaths have been caused by the deployment of horseless carriages? Probably over a million fatalities worldwide.
An analogy comes from software systems -- one could easily keep software in beta forever because bugs are difficult to anticipate. Only actual use will turn them up to be fixed. Similarly, airplanes. How many crashes due to unknown problems that became known only because of careful investigation of crashes.
The salient numbers for autonomous vehicles are not the number of crashes nor the number of fatalities. The salient number is the number of crashes per vehicle mile as compared to the similar figure for human controlled vehicles.
Yes, they're big news, but big news is not always informative and is often misleading.
"The Public" is deficient in their ability to evaluate risk, and the "If it Bleeds, it Leads" news cycles don't help.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
In the long run we are all dead! Surprisingly, citizens would rather not have their date with the Grim Reaper accelerated by a self-driving alpha or beta test system.
WTF does "In the long run" have to do with a person's assessment of the risks they are taking and their interest in a sketchy AI driving system??
It's one thing to risk your computer or phone being hacked and all your data/comms getting stolen. But with a self driving car, you're putting your life at risk if you're an important person, such as a political leader, CEO, etc. And it's not just the vehicle you're in you have to worry about, you have to worry about all the other vehicles around you being compromised. Too much risk as far as I'm concerned.
People are really bad at statistics and logic. It's just human nature. We get bombarded with stories about the one time things go wrong, but hear nothing about the thousands of miles driven without incident (or where the vehicle prevented an accident). Same reason why most moms feel like their kids are growing up in a more dangerous place, despite FBI statistics proving that the opposite is true.
Had there been a 24-hour news cycle during the nascent days of flight, we never would have had commercial airlines. Maybe we need a self-driving version of barnstormers. Somebody car surfing on one, maybe?
I should't be able to steer your car into a rock face by painting a QR code on it.
We can't build AI that relies on special signs or road markings or vehicle-to-vehicle communication. That's a terribly brittle approach, and way too easy to maliciously or accidentally defeat.
We need to build AI that relies on sensing its environment and behaving safely in all situations, including by pulling over and handing control over to a human when it gets confused.
Self-driving doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than humans. I don't know of too many humans with lidar.
and it's trying to solve a really stupid problem. For some reason people are convinced that a lot of accidents could be avoided if car A zigged while car B zagged.
In nearly 100% of cases the right answer is for car A and car B to hit their breaks and stop. If how you react is based on how some other car is telling you it's planning to react then that's a very brittle scenario.
The potential for corner cases in a distributed V2V protocol, including the cars getting confused about which car they are talking to, older cars with buggy non-updated firmware, and outright malicious actors. It's a bad engineering solution.
There's no reason you can't go on a joyride with the top down on the weekend, but self-driving frees you from having to drive to get from point A to point B.
think about that for a moment. You are describing a set of incidents, some of which are also being experienced by thousands of other Teslas. Those will all get fed back into the AI development and added to the test suite of millions of driving situations they use for validating their autopilot SW. When there's a bizarre accident, that gets added to the test suite.
Engineers debug those problems and make sure every test passes for the next round of the SW. That updated SW then gets uploaded to every Tesla on the road. Your car has gotten smarter because somebody 2,000 miles away hit a squirrel 2 weeks ago. As it gets smarter, more people buy Teslas. The dataset gets bigger, and so on.
That's an optimization algorithm with exponential convergence.
"Even Teslas don't."
FTFY
I do not plan to carry a transponder on my bike so it can communicate with AVs.
... but I definitely feel less safe crossing the road in front of one. The passengers will be fine but not the poor saps getting run over!
I wish I had a lawn.
So when I need a get-away car, will I be driving manually or load a get-away algorithm?
Can law enforcement remotely disable my car?
That's because there is currently no such thing as a fully autonomous self-driving car now, nor will there be one within the next five years. The 16% who said they would own one are dreaming.
Seems to me that the fear shouldn't be to ride in them, as much as to be a pedestrian on a road with them...
In fact, I'd want to know which roads allow autonomous vehicles, and what I could wear to avoid being hit by one :-)
the AI is so completely backwards, that it's not just broken, it's completely fraudulent. Pattern-recognition isn't a valid method of vision. It just isn't. I really don't care what it looks similar to, a stop sign is very clearly defined; no amount of "similar" pattern is valid. It either is, or it is not a red octagon in a reasonable location. Yesterday, I saw a small-ish stop sign on a barricade on the side of a highway. Would a tesla have hit the brakes from 140kph in full-speed traffic?
But hey, if this were at all possible with current systems, wouldn't we start with much simpler vessels? Like trains and subways? You know, that never turn, rarely change lanes, and have infinite knowledge of all other vessels on the track?
Alas, we don't have self-driving trains, because it doesn't even work there.
Vision has never been computed in any capacity. It's been faked, it's been estimated, and it's been random, but it's never been certain. Think about it this way. How certain would you be that a stop sign is a stop sign? What if you slowed down, stared at it, looked at it closely, for twenty minutes? Would you then be certain that it is or is not a stop sign? How many AI systems can check their own conclusions to become increasingly certain to that extent?
None.
That's the problem. There's no way for any current AI vision systems to "look closer", to double-check, to second-guess, to become more certain.
Because pattern-matching isn't definitive, it's heuristic. Heuristics are beneficial within ranges of certainty, but they can't ever be the end-game.
There have been, are, and always will be stupid people who do stupid things and end up getting themselves or other killed. Plus, there will always be things that happen completely outside the control of people and systems. Nevertheless, automated vehicle manufacturers need to be sure their vehicles are capable of doing everything they can to avoid a collision with anything. Hey, it's not like non-automated vehicles are that safe. sheesh! It's a very new field and needs a lot more testing before it becomes prime-time. Let's hope these setbacks won't prevent the future of automobiles from moving ahead.
Yeah, I lost faith in human drivers when I heard about the 3,200+ fatal crashes that occur every day.
It's almost like driving when it has snowed out. I'm a very competent snow/ice driver. However the guy in the other car may not be. In fact chances are that someone I meet on the road has next to no experience with ice and snow.
Same problem here. People can be really stupid and do really dumb things. They love to lie to themselves. I don't look like a fat slob or I'm glad I don't look like that person and they look worse! Likewise we have people that will not pay attention and intentionally do stupid things and cause accidents because they're not watching the road like they're supposed to. Turning off safety mechanisms and we see this with E-cigarettes as well. Accident is one thing, I don't read about many minor accidents with these cars. I'm seeing where they're plowing into a concrete barrier at 60 MPH or a truck at highway speeds. Things that can kill you easily.
Probably need a monitor in the car to make sure they're watching the road and not doing their make up, shaving or something else.