Remember the Uber self-driving car that killed a woman crossing the street?

Rich_cb wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

Just to shift the subject a little,do you see these cars as being single occupant vehicles,or will they pick up passengers along the way?

I think we'll see a mix, smaller single occupancy vehicles will have a place but most cars will probably be roughly the size of cars now but split into 4 dividable sections, if you're travelling as a group the divisions will be open, if you're travelling individually your section will be private. You'll be able to pay more to go straight to your destination without any stops, slightly less to stop once en route, less again to stop twice etc. You could even pre book the pick ups so you can share lifts too and from work etc. You didn't answer my previous question, do you think level 5 is necessary? I think level 4 will deliver almost all of the benefits far earlier, I'm not sure level 5 will ever be needed.

I wonder if it'd be like travelling by bus, with people strategically sitting or placing their luggage to make sure nobody sits next to them. People don't like sharing transport. Even 'public' transport.

Rich_cb wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

Just to shift the subject a little,do you see these cars as being single occupant vehicles,or will they pick up passengers along the way?

I think we'll see a mix, smaller single occupancy vehicles will have a place but most cars will probably be roughly the size of cars now but split into 4 dividable sections, if you're travelling as a group the divisions will be open, if you're travelling individually your section will be private. You'll be able to pay more to go straight to your destination without any stops, slightly less to stop once en route, less again to stop twice etc. You could even pre book the pick ups so you can share lifts too and from work etc. You didn't answer my previous question, do you think level 5 is necessary? I think level 4 will deliver almost all of the benefits far earlier, I'm not sure level 5 will ever be needed.

If it needs a driver it's not autonomous.The value only begins when you can send a vehicle to pick up a child or your mum. I'd need to be able to sleep aboard.To me,being "on call" would diminish the travel experience to the point of being an interesting novelty-not a life-changing invention.

So anything less than level 5 is a gimmick.I'm out.

Argus Tuft wrote:

If it needs a driver it's not autonomous.The value only begins when you can send a vehicle to pick up a child or your mum. I'd need to be able to sleep aboard.To me,being "on call" would diminish the travel experience to the point of being an interesting novelty-not a life-changing invention.

So anything less than level 5 is a gimmick.I'm out.

Level 4 autonomy allows full self driving within a geofenced area. So the current Waymo taxis are level 4. No driver required but no journeys outside the area specified.

That area could eventually encompass motorways and other cities, allowing intercity travel, while still remaining level 4.

Rich_cb wrote:

The Uber fatality was the result of the failure of two systems.

1. The AI system.
2. The human driver.

Using this example to demand the end to the development of system 1 in order to continue using system 2 indefinitely seems a bit short sighted.

The market leader in driverless cars has already launched a completely driverless taxi service in Phoenix, Arizona.

They have also clocked up 10 million driverless miles without, AFAIK, any deaths or serious injuries.

The better solution is to have far fewer cars and keep them away from vulnerable road-users.

And Phoenix Arizona? Really? A very-low-population-density, low latitude city, with high levels of sunlight and a desert climate, wide straight roads laid out on a grid pattern, relatively few pedestrians and clear sightlines? And jaywalking laws. In what possible way is that representative of most of the world's cities? Get back to me when it works in, say, Moscow. Or even London.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The better solution is to have far fewer cars and keep them away from vulnerable road-users.

And Phoenix Arizona? Really? A very-low-density city, low latitude city, with high levels of sunlight and a desert climate, wide straight roads laid out on a grid pattern, relatively few pedestrians and clear sightlines? And jaywalking laws. In what possible way is that representative of most of the world's cities? Get back to me when it works in, say, Moscow. Or even London.

Driverless cars will result in fewer cars and more road space for segregated infrastructure so you get your two wishes.

Seems a bit bizarre criticising the company for launching first in a relatively benign environment. I can imagine you having a pop at the Wright brothers for not going transatlantic on their first go.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The better solution is to have far fewer cars and keep them away from vulnerable road-users. And Phoenix Arizona? Really? A very-low-density city, low latitude city, with high levels of sunlight and a desert climate, wide straight roads laid out on a grid pattern, relatively few pedestrians and clear sightlines? And jaywalking laws. In what possible way is that representative of most of the world's cities? Get back to me when it works in, say, Moscow. Or even London.

Driverless cars will result in fewer cars and more road space for segregated infrastructure so you get your two wishes. Seems a bit bizarre criticising the company for launching first in a relatively benign environment. I can imagine you having a pop at the Wright brothers for not going transatlantic on their first go.

Back in the real world,driverless cars will be slowly cruising the streets in between jobs,cleverly avoiding parking fees and adding to congestion.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The better solution is to have far fewer cars and keep them away from vulnerable road-users.

And Phoenix Arizona? Really? A very-low-density city, low latitude city, with high levels of sunlight and a desert climate, wide straight roads laid out on a grid pattern, relatively few pedestrians and clear sightlines? And jaywalking laws. In what possible way is that representative of most of the world's cities? Get back to me when it works in, say, Moscow. Or even London.

Driverless cars will result in fewer cars and more road space for segregated infrastructure so you get your two wishes.

Seems a bit bizarre criticising the company for launching first in a relatively benign environment. I can imagine you having a pop at the Wright brothers for not going transatlantic on their first go.

You give no evidence for your first claim so I'm discounting it.

Re the Wright brothers, clearly you didn't read my comment, or you wouldn't make such a terrible analogy that doesn't work at all. Why do you think that analogy is at all relevant?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You give no evidence for your first claim so I'm discounting it.

Re the Wright brothers, clearly you didn't read my comment, or you wouldn't make such a terrible analogy that doesn't work at all. Why do you think that analogy is at all relevant?

A short flight in a field? Really? In what way is that of any use to anyone. Who wants to fly from one end of a field to another? How is that in any way comparable to a flight from London to New York.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You give no evidence for your first claim so I'm discounting it.

Re the Wright brothers, clearly you didn't read my comment, or you wouldn't make such a terrible analogy that doesn't work at all. Why do you think that analogy is at all relevant?

A short flight in a field? Really? In what way is that of any use to anyone. Who wants to fly from one end of a field to another? How is that in any way comparable to a flight from London to New York.

And what does that have to do with the issue of the exponentially-increasing complexity in dealing with real world conditions in real busy cities, or the issue of the dangerous nature of the middle-ground between driver-assist and full autonomy, that leads to issues like this case, where the back-up driver gets bored and stops paying attention?

How does the analogy work? You are talking about going from short distances to long distances - where is the analogous dangerous middle-ground and exponential complexity?

You can't just make a lazy analogy that 'some unrelated tech has improved in some unrelated way in the past, therefore all tech will always solve all problems'

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

And what does that have to do with the issue of the exponentially-increasing complexity in dealing with real world conditions in real busy cities, or the issue of the dangerous nature of the middle-ground between driver-assist and full autonomy, that leads to issues like this case, where the back-up driver gets bored and stops paying attention?

How does the analogy work? You are talking about going from short distances to long distances - where is the analogous dangerous middle-ground and exponential complexity?

You can't just make a lazy analogy that 'some unrelated tech has improved in some unrelated way in the past, therefore all tech will always solve all problems'

Is flying for a few yards hugely less complex than flying a transatlantic route?

Yes.

Is autonomous driving in Arizona hugely less complex than autonomous driving in Moscow in winter?

Yes.

Exponential complexity: check

Did anybody die when they were trying to master long distance flight?

Yes.

Was there a period when long distance flight was considerably more dangerous than short distance flight?

Yes

Dangerous middle ground: check

The analogy is a very good one.

I didn't say that all tech would solve all problems. You just made that up.

Autonomous driving is now at level 4. The company that achieved it did so in 10 years.

You can try and diminish that accomplishment if you want but it just makes you look a bit ridiculous.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

And what does that have to do with the issue of the exponentially-increasing complexity in dealing with real world conditions in real busy cities, or the issue of the dangerous nature of the middle-ground between driver-assist and full autonomy, that leads to issues like this case, where the back-up driver gets bored and stops paying attention?

How does the analogy work? You are talking about going from short distances to long distances - where is the analogous dangerous middle-ground and exponential complexity?

You can't just make a lazy analogy that 'some unrelated tech has improved in some unrelated way in the past, therefore all tech will always solve all problems'

Is flying for a few yards hugely less complex than flying a transatlantic route?

Yes.

Is autonomous driving in Arizona hugely less complex than autonomous driving in Moscow in winter?

Yes.

Exponential complexity: check

Did anybody die when they were trying to master long distance flight?

Yes.

Was there a period when long distance flight was considerably more dangerous than short distance flight?

Yes

Dangerous middle ground: check

The analogy is a very good one.

I didn't say that all tech would solve all problems. You just made that up.

Autonomous driving is now at level 4. The company that achieved it did so in 10 years.

You can try and diminish that accomplishment if you want but it just makes you look a bit ridiculous.

Nope, not remotely convincing. It's a terrible analogy. Again, you are simply claiming that if one technical thing can be improved in one way, then all can be in any possible way. It's nonsense.

The difference between flying a short and longer distance is in no way comparable or analogous to the difference between programming an AI to cope with a simple situation or a much more complex one. You have not provided any argument that says they are in any way the same problem.

And, no, there isn't an analogous dangerous middle-ground, you didn't even bother to argue for that one, just stated it as a unsupported claim! That middle-ground is a very specific issue, specific to automation and to AI.

Nor have you shown that there is the same exponential effect of increasing the number of variables, rather than a linear increase in difficulty.

I don't get your tech evangelism. I dislike that political tendency in general, I have to say, it's strongly connected to libertarianism and rich-white-guys and a kind of fake-liberalism.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nope, not remotely convincing. It's a terrible analogy. Again, you are simply claiming that if one technical thing can be improved in one way, then all can be in any possible way. It's nonsense.

The difference between flying a short and longer distance is in no way comparable or analogous to the difference between programming an AI to cope with a simple situation or a much more complex one. You have not provided any argument that says they are in any way the same problem.

And, no, there isn't an analogous dangerous middle-ground, you didn't even bother to argue for that one, just stated it as a unsupported claim! That middle-ground is a very specific issue, specific to automation and to AI.

Nor have you shown that there is the same exponential effect of increasing the number of variables, rather than a linear increase in difficulty.

I don't get your tech evangelism. I dislike that political tendency in general, I have to say, it's strongly connected to libertarianism and rich-white-guys.

Firstly, look up the definition of analogy. (Hint: it doesn't mean exactly the same.)

Secondly, please stop bringing race, gender etc. into discussions that have nothing to do with it. It's pretty poor form to try and undermine an argument by aluding to gender, race, wealth etc. makes you seem like you don't actually have a decent argument in the first place.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's pretty poor form to try and undermine an argument by aluding to gender, race, wealth etc. makes you seem like you don't actually have a decent argument in the first place.

Except that there's an awful lot of anecdotal evidence about how difficult machine learning systems find it when it has to deal with anyone who's not white... Google facial recognition fails ("Open your eyes" instructions to someone of Chinese descent, "Close your mouth" instructions to someone black, etc etc). Race certainly matters.

brooksby wrote:

Except that there's an awful lot of anecdotal evidence about how difficult machine learning systems find it when it has to deal with anyone who's not white... Google facial recognition fails ("Open your eyes" instructions to someone of Chinese descent, "Close your mouth" instructions to someone black, etc etc). Race certainly matters.

In facial recognition certainly, in self driving cars?

AFAIK race has absolutely nothing to do with it but, once again, FKoT has brought it up.

brooksby wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

It's pretty poor form to try and undermine an argument by aluding to gender, race, wealth etc. makes you seem like you don't actually have a decent argument in the first place.

Except that there's an awful lot of anecdotal evidence about how difficult machine learning systems find it when it has to deal with anyone who's not white... Google facial recognition fails ("Open your eyes" instructions to someone of Chinese descent, "Close your mouth" instructions to someone black, etc etc). Race certainly matters.

That's true, though the connection is broader than specific instances like that. What demographic is it who fanboys all over Elon Musk? What does Uber do in addition to developing dodgy self-driving cars? What are the tech crowd doing politically and economically in San Fransisco in particular and in US politics in general?

There's a link between that kind of 'tech will solve all' mentality and a kind of faux-liberal/libertarian politics. I just don't agree with that emphasis on tech solutions, and it's a political question (as is everything, really).

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nope, not remotely convincing. It's a terrible analogy. Again, you are simply claiming that if one technical thing can be improved in one way, then all can be in any possible way. It's nonsense.

The difference between flying a short and longer distance is in no way comparable or analogous to the difference between programming an AI to cope with a simple situation or a much more complex one. You have not provided any argument that says they are in any way the same problem.

And, no, there isn't an analogous dangerous middle-ground, you didn't even bother to argue for that one, just stated it as a unsupported claim! That middle-ground is a very specific issue, specific to automation and to AI.

Nor have you shown that there is the same exponential effect of increasing the number of variables, rather than a linear increase in difficulty.

I don't get your tech evangelism. I dislike that political tendency in general, I have to say, it's strongly connected to libertarianism and rich-white-guys.

Firstly, look up the definition of analogy. (Hint: it doesn't mean exactly the same.)

Secondly, please stop bringing race, gender etc. into discussions that have nothing to do with it. It's pretty poor form to try and undermine an argument by aluding to gender, race, wealth etc. makes you seem like you don't actually have a decent argument in the first place.

Don't really care about your views of 'form'. Those things do have everything to do with Elon Musk Silicon Valley style techno-evangelism, however much you might want to deny it. I get that you want to ignore the political context, but it doesn't make it go away.

PS look up the definition of analogy yourself, then come up with one.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Don't really care about your views of 'form'. Those things do have everything to do with Elon Musk Silicon Valley style techno-evangelism, however much you might want to deny it. I get that you want to ignore the political context, but it doesn't make it go away.

PS look up the definition of analogy yourself, then come up with one.

Here's the definition:
"a correspondence or partial similarity."

Think that settles the discussion.

You already knew that though, which is why you brought gender, wealth and race into it.

Just like you did last time we had a discussion.

Try and pretend it's relevant if you want but it seems like you just hit the identity politics whenever a discussion is not going your way. Pretty sad really.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Don't really care about your views of 'form'. Those things do have everything to do with Elon Musk Silicon Valley style techno-evangelism, however much you might want to deny it. I get that you want to ignore the political context, but it doesn't make it go away. PS look up the definition of analogy yourself, then come up with one.

Here's the definition: "a correspondence or partial similarity." Think that settles the discussion. You already knew that though, which is why you brought gender, wealth and race into it. Just like you did last time we had a discussion. Try and pretend it's relevant if you want but it seems like you just hit the identity politics whenever a discussion is not going your way. Pretty sad really.

Yes, yes, I get that you are quite right-wing  and hence like to pretend race and wealth are not factors in social issues.  That's obvious. 

It's also obvious you have no idea what an analogy is.  It has to have a partial similarity that is relevant to the point under discussion.  Yours does not.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Yes, yes, I get that you are quite right-wing  and hence like to pretend race and wealth are not factors in social issues.  That's obvious. 

 

It's also obvious you have no idea what an analogy is.  It has to have a partial similarity that is relevant to the point under discussion.  Yours does not.

You may disagree with the dictionary definition but that makes you wrong not the dictionary.

I'm not even going to bother with your student union identity politics nonsense.

Argus Tuft wrote:

i'm not talking about safety -it's capability that's the issue. Even now at this late stage of development these things can't deal with snow  and need  lane markings to operate. What percentage of the world's roads have lane markings?

Imagine you're driving in a rural town and you notice a massive hailstorm brewing up.A human might mount the kerb and shelter under a shop awning until it blows over. Would an autonomous vehicle? 5  years seems optimistic to me.

Unrealistic expectations. You seem to think that a complete and infallible technology is going to be delivered to the public at the first iteration. It isn't, no new technology ever is. Personally I'll be more than happy to drive my car to the A1, switch to autopilot for the journey north and be alerted to take back control whenever the system is less than 100% sure of its own decisions or reaches a section of the road system not designated as suitable for autonomous control.

As for capability. I suggest you book a Tesla road test. The system available today is more than capable of basic driving in traffic, but you have to keep your hands on the wheel for legal reasons.

With regards to snow, maybe you should check out some youtube videos (mostly featuring a boxy Lada for some reason) to see how shit humans are at driving in it.

Mungecrundle wrote:

With regards to snow, maybe you should check out some youtube videos (mostly featuring a boxy Lada for some reason) to see how shit humans are at driving in it.

We all know that you don't need snow to show shit driving. Here's one that occurred this morning:

https://twitter.com/samuriinbred/status/1192707129121165313

I'd prefer to see the money spent on:

- compulsory eye tests for all drivers and random roadside checks.

- driving retests every 5 years and required when 6 points accrued on licence.

- enforcement of speed limits and police to use dashcam/cycle cam footage. Increase the fines & sell impounded vehicles to pay for more police resources, both on the road and behind the desk.

- automatic ban on 12 points, no stupid excuses like 'financial hardship' (including for selfish gits like Alan Partridge). Suck it up, lowlife.

- caught driving when banned: vehicle crushed or impounded and sold, lifetime ban.

(I could probably think of a few more given a bit of time but aware that I'm straying a bit OT so I'll leave it at that).

Mungecrundle][quote=Argus Tuft wrote:

i'm not talking about safety -it's capability that's the issue. Even now at this late stage of development these things can't deal with snow  and need  lane markings to operate. What percentage of the world's roads have lane markings?

Imagine you're driving in a rural town and you notice a massive hailstorm brewing up.A human might mount the kerb and shelter under a shop awning until it blows over. Would an autonomous vehicle? 5  years seems optimistic to me.

Unrealistic expectations. You seem to think that a complete and infallible technology is going to be delivered to the public at the first iteration. It isn't, no new technology ever is. Personally I'll be more than happy to drive my car to the A1, switch to autopilot for the journey north and be alerted to take back control whenever the system is less than 100% sure of its own decisions or reaches a section of the road system not designated as suitable for autonomous control. As for capability. I suggest you book a Tesla road test. The system available today is more than capable of basic driving in traffic, but you have to keep your hands on the wheel for legal reasons. With regards to snow, maybe you should check out some youtube videos (mostly featuring a boxy Lada for some reason) to see how shit humans are at driving in it.[/quote

We've different definitions of autonomy.What you're describing I'd define as glorified cruise control.

I'd only be interested in what we've been promised for so long-No controls or instruments,just a keyboard to type your destination into.

What's on offer now is pretty  lame.-You're sitting there with your hands on the wheel-but you're not "Driving"? And how much do you pay for that rewarding experience?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Also, here's the info showing the difference between lighting conditions on the road in question and the Uber video: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/

Unless the original Uber video was deliberately doctored, I would argue that the lights were off along that stretch on that day as only one in the distance at the junction is showing and none of the others that should have appeared are showing at all. I wonder if the NTSB full report will mention that or not. And as for the headlight distance, unfortunately we now have cars with adjustable dipping, supposedly to stop blinding of people if you put too much weight in the back to lift the front. Unfortunately most people set and forget so might have been on lowest setting. That woiuld have been on Uber / Vehicle operator.

However it still doesn't stop the fact that the ped / cyclist stepped in front of a car to cross a road with the car in view  (and probably computer controlled to do the legal speed limit on that stretch) and expected the driver to move out of her way by either braking or switching lanes.  

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Also, here's the info showing the difference between lighting conditions on the road in question and the Uber video: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/

Unless the original Uber video was deliberately doctored, I would argue that the lights were off along that stretch on that day as only one in the distance at the junction is showing and none of the others that should have appeared are showing at all. I wonder if the NTSB full report will mention that or not. And as for the headlight distance, unfortunately we now have cars with adjustable dipping, supposedly to stop blinding of people if you put too much weight in the back to lift the front. Unfortunately most people set and forget so might have been on lowest setting. That woiuld have been on Uber / Vehicle operator.

However it still doesn't stop the fact that the ped / cyclist stepped in front of a car to cross a road with the car in view  (and probably computer controlled to do the legal speed limit on that stretch) and expected the driver to move out of her way by either braking or switching lanes.  

I don't see where you get that from. It hardly has to be specifically 'doctored' - everyone who has ever taken a photo or a video knows that such things are crucially-dependent on the exposure settings (or ASA speed equivalent).

The victim-blaming at the end isn't worthy of comment.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Also, here's the info showing the difference between lighting conditions on the road in question and the Uber video: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/

Unless the original Uber video was deliberately doctored, I would argue that the lights were off along that stretch on that day as only one in the distance at the junction is showing and none of the others that should have appeared are showing at all. I wonder if the NTSB full report will mention that or not. And as for the headlight distance, unfortunately we now have cars with adjustable dipping, supposedly to stop blinding of people if you put too much weight in the back to lift the front. Unfortunately most people set and forget so might have been on lowest setting. That woiuld have been on Uber / Vehicle operator.

However it still doesn't stop the fact that the ped / cyclist stepped in front of a car to cross a road with the car in view  (and probably computer controlled to do the legal speed limit on that stretch) and expected the driver to move out of her way by either braking or switching lanes.  

The video doesn't have to be deliberately doctored - it's just got a different sensitivity/shutter speed and thus doesn't match what human eyes would perceive. It's quite common for cameras to record scenes quite differently than you would expect as human eyes/brain do a lot of image processing so that colours look the same under low light etc.

The headlight issue also confirms that the dashcam was poorly calibrated for night-time footage - it's discussed in the ArsTechnica link I supplied.

I find your attitude regarding the pedestrian to be quite disturbing - basically it seems like you want a death sentence for anyone who makes a mistake about where they're walking.