Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber 'Neglected' Simulation Testing For Its Autonomous Vehicles, Says Report (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the missing-pieces dept.

According to a report from The Information, Uber allegedly "neglected" simulation testing for its autonomous vehicles. "The publication's sources claim that there was a dearth of investment in the simulation software, and lots of incompatible code between the autonomous vehicle software and simulation software Uber is developing internally," reports Engadget. "However, the sources said there isn't a direct link between the lack of investment and the fatal accident involving one of Uber's autonomous taxis and a pedestrian." From the report: It's worth noting that the Unreal Engine-powered simulation software is still relatively new. The Information writes that the suite wasn't developed until after self-driving project lead Anthony Levandowski was fired mid-2017. To add insult to injury, initially, there were also differences in pay between simulation engineers and other engineers in the department. The end goal was to release a self-driving car in Arizona this year, codenamed "Roadrunner," to compete with Waymo's offering just outside of Phoenix.

8 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. But it worked fine in Kerbal Space Program by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's worth noting that the Unreal Engine-powered simulation software was relatively new

    Hmm, turns out the real world is different than the Unreal world. :/

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Backseat Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who is to say that they "neglected" simulation? I'm no Uber fanboy. Engineers working on the main show make more than simulation and test engineers at a great many companies. In addition, in my experience, simulation, especially of something complex and cutting edge like this (rather than say, FEA), is often of little value, because it is so hard to really model the world. Right or wrong, paying less to simulation engineers was not negligence. These wild conclusions seem to stem not from the facts, but from "The Information's" desire to create a sensational headline. Maybe Uber WAS negligent. This article does not convincingly make this case.

    1. Re:Backseat Engineering by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need to model the real world. You drive the car around with sensors on and record the input, then in simulation you feed the input from all the weird scenarios you recorded into your system.

      The behaviour of Uber, Tesla and others is quite frankly reprehensible. The testing of these systems need should be at a higher bar than anything NASA or aeronautical firms given the widespread deployment, reduced control and much wider variety of possibility of harm.

    2. Re:Backseat Engineering by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      There is no assurance that they will ever get to a point where they will save a significant number of lives. Until we have hard evidence of that, I would prefer they stop creating their own deaths. In the case of Autopilot, people are lulled into a false sense of safety until they make a mistake that kills or injures themselves or others.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Backseat Engineering by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      That approach works but is limited in several ways: You can only playback scenarios that have actually happened, and it doesn't work if the hardware & sensor arrangement is still changing. It is also slow since it is more of an integration test than a unit test. I've worked with this approach before and it is nice once everything is locked-down, but it is not great during the R&D phase.

    4. Re:Backseat Engineering by Luthair · · Score: 2

      There is an opportunity cost of delaying automated vehicles until they are close to perfect (a large one).

      What exactly? Your short term stock options?

      we'll set automated driving back a decade or two, costing countless lives in the process.

      Ah, this specious argument again. Self-driving cars have yet to show this to be accurate, Waymo is apparently the best of the bunch yet requires human intervention on an average of 5000 miles - given that the average American drives 13k miles a year the best automation would crash a little under 3 times a year. While Tesla touts its autopilot notice how it never discloses how frequently it disengages, how often the driver must pro-actively prevent an accident, nor how often it does something dangerous without resulting in an accident.

  3. So, the Microsoft ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... model.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  4. No XIL testing? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

    How in the world did this make it to production without SIL/MIL/HIL testing?

    dSpace sells HIL benches specifically to test ADAS