Autopilot was only better in highway conditions because the Florida accident made everyone very leery of letting Autopilot handle any kind of non-basic driving. So yes, the combined effect of someone killing themselves with Autopilot and the driver assist made highway driving saver. I'm also quite sure Autopilot limits the speed the person drives to the speed limit as well, which is another artificial gain because a person could always drive that speed in a manual car they just don't choose to. This has nothing to do with stop signs however. The reason why Autopilot doesn't work as well in the city is because that is where all the complexity is that I am talking about. Very rarely does anything unexpected happen on the highway.
You missed my point. If the code was too complicated for them to miss a thing like a trailer, then they will make another mistake like that again, and over and over. Maybe it won't be a tailor next time, maybe it will be a person. I'm not saying that mistake will happen, I'm saying a different one will. Computers are better, but people have to program them. The only way to take people out of the process is to have strong AI, which is at first what I thought these companies were doing. Right now they are testing in controlled areas or calling it 'driver assist' to mitigate the issues, but the concept of them taking one of these cars into full public without strong AI is scary. There is too much that relies on manual programming.
Cars that are driving in test zones don't count. I'm talking about the viability of a self driving car driving freely on public roads, meaning it drives exactly like a human. People are already complaining about driving behind a Google car because they are limited in speed, therefore they are not ready for full public.
I'll need you to cite a reference for that. I know there are self driving cars for off-road use, which is much easier. To my knowledge there are no self driving cards made for public road use, even in germany and japan.
Well I think Autopilot running into a trailer because of the way the sun was shining on it was stupid. Maybe Tesla has fixed that but you're stupid if you think something like that won't happen again.
Tesla even had a WARNING months before hand that the tech had an issue with trailers. A person activated the self parking feature with their phone and the car drove into the back of a tailor because the low mounted sensors couldn't detect it. I would think if they were sharp people, then they would have looked at every flaw related to trailers and fixed them yet in Florida a car runs into a trailer months later.
Well Autopilot already confused a truck trailer for a bridge which seems like a fairly obvious mistake, so.. absolutely. It's all about the tricks that shadows and light can play on a sensor. It won't get blinded the same way as a person but it will make a mistake just the same. It's not that I think these programmers are idiots, I just don't think it is possible for any human to think of all the possibilities.
Well they're really going to suck to drive in then. They're going to basically be paralyzed at some intersections. Admittedly, that's better then T-boning someone but not commercially viable. If they get confused at an intersection with a bent stop sign, how will they ever drive around snow clearing equipment in the process of clearing the road?
Let me add that I understand that there is a lot of complex code in vehicles today, but the risk that AI introduces is that you are now putting it in full control of heavy machinery in public, and any mistake in any of these billions of lines of code could kill a person that may not even be driving a car at all.
In a sensor, a stop sign is just a blob of red spectrum light. People have to tell it if the blob of red spectrum light is standing 10 feet from the ground by an intersection then it is a stop sign. Except a balloon may be red and on a 10 foot string. So they need to tell the car everything that isn't a stop sign. Also a stop sign may not be standing straight up, but that doesn't make it any less than a stop sign so they have the teach the car to recognize the stop sign in every way that it can be bent over and covered by dirt and snow. Now they have a vast set of qualifications for a stop sign, they have to make sure that none of these other possible states for a stop sign matches anything else in the world that might be placed next to an intersection. Because they are not using strong AI, every one of these possibilities needs to be programmed in, and it could likely get to be tens of thousands of conditionals just so it doesn't get confused by a stop sign. This is just a stationary object. How many millions of situations will need to be programmed to recognize construction equipment and understand what color they may be, what state they may be in, and what direction they may be driving? millions of statements. Understanding flagmen at construction sites, millions more statements. Every object in the world that may be by a road needs to be understood and I am not sure how they will do that all with the current state of AI.
How does the database get built then? Is every city, county, municipality in the world going to have some way and be legally bound to report immediately any time a stop sign is moved? We might as well be talking about how safe flying cars are. Making an educated guess at what to do at an intersection isn't good enough. When you say AI only needs to be as good as people, you are not correct. They need to be good enough to avoid all accidents a human would have avoided. Otherwise the technology has failed and the person in that accident should be able to sue. AI should never make a mistake that would not happen in a manual car, that is just a big step back to what we have now.
Not if AI doesn't get better than it is. Humans get blinded by the sun because our eyes can't function while staring at the sun. AI may be 'excused' by getting blinded by the sun once, but while it is easy to excuse a human for being infallible, it is less easy to excuse a machine that is driving a car and can't read the world's patterns properly in all situations. there is a reason why they are only being used under the strictest of conditions right now; because they don't want the true pattern to be seen, that they will actually be blinded by almost anything as this article seems to indicate.
First of all, board games are a totally different problem than driving. Board games are at one end of the spectrum where there are really no decisions being made. AlphaGo has to pick what road to go down because it can't make all the calculations and it is a critical part of what it does, but ultimately its success comes from the fact that a game is just a calculation which computers are good at. Understanding the real world is not something computers are good at, so they can't deal with basic changes in the world. They need to be good enough to not get sued into oblivion, and if they can't adapt to subtle changes that is what will happen.
I think most people putting a lot of money into AI don't really understand the difference between programming a response to a stop sign and understanding what a stop sign is. If a stop sign is bent over from a previous accident and covered in snow, you will still stop if you truly understand what that object is. If you have programmed a stop sign, the vehicle is lucky to sail on through because stop signs aren't white objects on a pole close to the ground. How do you program for even every physical condition a stop sign may find itself in?
The automated driving industry is being driven (no pun intended) by a complete ignorance of how good our brains are at putting together some patterns of light and making the correct decision from it.
I've been saying it before and I'll say it again. These automated cars will be forever getting into accidents because they didn't see a child because of the sun, or because it didn't know a cat would run into the road, or because they saw a ball go into the road but did not anticipate a child running after it. There are too many things to code for.
That's not true. A person can realize they have turned down a one way road the wrong way and turn around without causing an accident. An AI just shuts down and parks.
Sure, take away the device. That will work until the school asks them to do research in class on their device or plays a game in class that is an online trivia game. They you have to give them their device.
No, it has to do with the fact that apps are scientifically made to be addictive. Analytics make it no different to modifying the chemical composure of tobacco so that people smoke more.
Slashdot Mirror
Autopilot was only better in highway conditions because the Florida accident made everyone very leery of letting Autopilot handle any kind of non-basic driving. So yes, the combined effect of someone killing themselves with Autopilot and the driver assist made highway driving saver. I'm also quite sure Autopilot limits the speed the person drives to the speed limit as well, which is another artificial gain because a person could always drive that speed in a manual car they just don't choose to. This has nothing to do with stop signs however. The reason why Autopilot doesn't work as well in the city is because that is where all the complexity is that I am talking about. Very rarely does anything unexpected happen on the highway.
You missed my point. If the code was too complicated for them to miss a thing like a trailer, then they will make another mistake like that again, and over and over. Maybe it won't be a tailor next time, maybe it will be a person. I'm not saying that mistake will happen, I'm saying a different one will. Computers are better, but people have to program them. The only way to take people out of the process is to have strong AI, which is at first what I thought these companies were doing. Right now they are testing in controlled areas or calling it 'driver assist' to mitigate the issues, but the concept of them taking one of these cars into full public without strong AI is scary. There is too much that relies on manual programming.
Cars that are driving in test zones don't count. I'm talking about the viability of a self driving car driving freely on public roads, meaning it drives exactly like a human. People are already complaining about driving behind a Google car because they are limited in speed, therefore they are not ready for full public.
But Autopilot is how they plan to get to self driving car.
I took a class on AI 20 years ago, and not much seems to have changed to tell you the truth.
I'll need you to cite a reference for that. I know there are self driving cars for off-road use, which is much easier. To my knowledge there are no self driving cards made for public road use, even in germany and japan.
Castle Wolfenstein
Well I think Autopilot running into a trailer because of the way the sun was shining on it was stupid. Maybe Tesla has fixed that but you're stupid if you think something like that won't happen again.
Well I'm not sure why Uber and Google are doing all this research then, if self driving cars have already been here for 20 years.
Tesla even had a WARNING months before hand that the tech had an issue with trailers. A person activated the self parking feature with their phone and the car drove into the back of a tailor because the low mounted sensors couldn't detect it. I would think if they were sharp people, then they would have looked at every flaw related to trailers and fixed them yet in Florida a car runs into a trailer months later.
Well Autopilot already confused a truck trailer for a bridge which seems like a fairly obvious mistake, so.. absolutely. It's all about the tricks that shadows and light can play on a sensor. It won't get blinded the same way as a person but it will make a mistake just the same. It's not that I think these programmers are idiots, I just don't think it is possible for any human to think of all the possibilities.
Well they're really going to suck to drive in then. They're going to basically be paralyzed at some intersections. Admittedly, that's better then T-boning someone but not commercially viable. If they get confused at an intersection with a bent stop sign, how will they ever drive around snow clearing equipment in the process of clearing the road?
Let me add that I understand that there is a lot of complex code in vehicles today, but the risk that AI introduces is that you are now putting it in full control of heavy machinery in public, and any mistake in any of these billions of lines of code could kill a person that may not even be driving a car at all.
In a sensor, a stop sign is just a blob of red spectrum light. People have to tell it if the blob of red spectrum light is standing 10 feet from the ground by an intersection then it is a stop sign. Except a balloon may be red and on a 10 foot string. So they need to tell the car everything that isn't a stop sign. Also a stop sign may not be standing straight up, but that doesn't make it any less than a stop sign so they have the teach the car to recognize the stop sign in every way that it can be bent over and covered by dirt and snow. Now they have a vast set of qualifications for a stop sign, they have to make sure that none of these other possible states for a stop sign matches anything else in the world that might be placed next to an intersection. Because they are not using strong AI, every one of these possibilities needs to be programmed in, and it could likely get to be tens of thousands of conditionals just so it doesn't get confused by a stop sign. This is just a stationary object. How many millions of situations will need to be programmed to recognize construction equipment and understand what color they may be, what state they may be in, and what direction they may be driving? millions of statements. Understanding flagmen at construction sites, millions more statements. Every object in the world that may be by a road needs to be understood and I am not sure how they will do that all with the current state of AI.
How does the database get built then? Is every city, county, municipality in the world going to have some way and be legally bound to report immediately any time a stop sign is moved? We might as well be talking about how safe flying cars are. Making an educated guess at what to do at an intersection isn't good enough. When you say AI only needs to be as good as people, you are not correct. They need to be good enough to avoid all accidents a human would have avoided. Otherwise the technology has failed and the person in that accident should be able to sue. AI should never make a mistake that would not happen in a manual car, that is just a big step back to what we have now.
Not if AI doesn't get better than it is. Humans get blinded by the sun because our eyes can't function while staring at the sun. AI may be 'excused' by getting blinded by the sun once, but while it is easy to excuse a human for being infallible, it is less easy to excuse a machine that is driving a car and can't read the world's patterns properly in all situations. there is a reason why they are only being used under the strictest of conditions right now; because they don't want the true pattern to be seen, that they will actually be blinded by almost anything as this article seems to indicate.
First of all, board games are a totally different problem than driving. Board games are at one end of the spectrum where there are really no decisions being made. AlphaGo has to pick what road to go down because it can't make all the calculations and it is a critical part of what it does, but ultimately its success comes from the fact that a game is just a calculation which computers are good at. Understanding the real world is not something computers are good at, so they can't deal with basic changes in the world. They need to be good enough to not get sued into oblivion, and if they can't adapt to subtle changes that is what will happen.
I think most people putting a lot of money into AI don't really understand the difference between programming a response to a stop sign and understanding what a stop sign is. If a stop sign is bent over from a previous accident and covered in snow, you will still stop if you truly understand what that object is. If you have programmed a stop sign, the vehicle is lucky to sail on through because stop signs aren't white objects on a pole close to the ground. How do you program for even every physical condition a stop sign may find itself in?
The automated driving industry is being driven (no pun intended) by a complete ignorance of how good our brains are at putting together some patterns of light and making the correct decision from it.
I've been saying it before and I'll say it again. These automated cars will be forever getting into accidents because they didn't see a child because of the sun, or because it didn't know a cat would run into the road, or because they saw a ball go into the road but did not anticipate a child running after it. There are too many things to code for.
That's not true. A person can realize they have turned down a one way road the wrong way and turn around without causing an accident. An AI just shuts down and parks.
And when the school requires them to have a phone?
A phone is way different than a TV. A phone is like a TV plus a computer with internet that comes with them to school. Apples to oranges.
Sure, take away the device. That will work until the school asks them to do research in class on their device or plays a game in class that is an online trivia game. They you have to give them their device.
No, it has to do with the fact that apps are scientifically made to be addictive. Analytics make it no different to modifying the chemical composure of tobacco so that people smoke more.