So idiotic mistakes like this are acceptable, because people die anyways?
If fewer die, then that's a "win" isn't it?
Uber’s Self-Driving Car Didn’t Know Pedestrians Could Jaywalk
- Thread starter here_for_the_hawkeyes
- Start date
If fewer die, then that's a "win" isn't it?
Good point, but......
Would you say the same if one of your loved ones was part of the 5000? I bet not
.see question above
Good point, but......
Would you say the same if one of your loved ones was part of the 5000? I bet not
see question above
Well, we could always ban cars altogether and have zero car crash deaths.
so basically, you don't want to answer the question?
Would I say the same thing to a family that lost a family member to a car crash?
Yes.
Yeah, having worked in AI and the IT world, I find that far more problematic than only specifically looking for "pedestrians" in a crosswalk. You're never going to have a perfect program that will identify person, bike, box, skateboard, panda bear, hawk, squirrel, chipmunk, bag of groceries, etc., each with specific sets of actions.
What should have happened is assess the size, speed and direction of the potential "obstacle" and react appropriately, not just get to "other" and plow ahead. In this case, two elements to key in on would be size and the fact that the person is traveling along the ground. If I'm driving and see anything 5 feet+ tall moving on a path that appears likely to intersect mine, I'm going to take some sort of evasive action. I'm not going to do that if I see a fluttering leaf that might bounce off my windshield.
That's the price of progress. There will be spinoff industries and new developments that come as a result......but unless we're going to arbitrarily halt automation, there's not much to be done. There will be winners, there will be losers and society will continue to evolve.
Nope, but that's where the specific identification doesn't matter....I can't think of too many things 5 feet tall moving to intercept my path staying firmly on the ground that I'm not going to do everything possible to miss. Size, elevation and path dictate action.
Politicians will protect jobs by mandating a human driver in long-haul, 18-wheelers... which honestly, is the best immediate use of this technology.
Seems odd that the truck passes through. Lotta weird in this clip.These people deserve to be shot. Notice the light is green.
I hit a rolling ball of metal gardening fence one time. It didn't really mess up my car (it was a beater), but it did get stuck under the car and I was spewing sparks all over the place. Getting it out of there was a bitch.
It's going to put truckers out of work unless politicians protect them.
That's a fact, Jack.
My point in posting this article was to highlight that it's insane to not program your car to look for humans outside of crosswalks. That's ridiculous and all the cops in this thread know it.
If there were 10 of these driverless cars in downtown Iowa City, there would be 10,000 dead students by Christmas...
Next Up In Self Driving Software Fails:
- No idea that trees can fall down across roads
- No idea electrical poles can fall down across roads
- No idea vehicles do not float when encountering >3ft of water in roadway
- No idea what a baby carriage is
- No idea that 6" of snow and ice affects acceleration and braking
- No idea that thick fog doesn't mean "Wide open freeway", but rather "No visibility"
This is just one link but there are many really interesting articles discussing just how much self driving cars are going to flip the economy upside down.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/goldman-sachs-analysis-of-autonomous-vehicle-job-loss.html
We’ve virtually eliminated pilots and air travel has never been safer. Driverless cars are inevitable.
On a side note about AI cars is the issue of when they have to decide who dies in an inevitable accident. Will the AI decide who has the best chance of survival? Will there be hacks in AI software that protects your car above all others? There are a lot of interesting problems that will need to be addressed and regulated.
So idiotic mistakes like this are acceptable, because people die anyways?
It is all part of it. I wish it could be 100% clean but that isn't possible as HUMANS are doing the programming this point for these vehicles and maybe you haven't noticed but newer software, even developed software, never seems to be 100% bug proof.
However if autonomous vehicles are shown to statistically be safer for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians isn't that a step in a better direction even if it isn't 100%?
For example:
On the afternoon of July 16, 2003, George Weller, then age 86, drove his 1992 Buick LeSabre westbound down Arizona Avenue in Santa Monica, California toward the city's popular Third Street Promenade. The last few blocks of the street, before it ends at the ocean, had been closed to vehicle traffic for the biweekly farmers' market.
Weller's car struck a 2003 Mercedes-Benz S430 sedan that had stopped to allow pedestrians through a crosswalk, then accelerated around a road closure sign, crashed through wooden sawhorses, and plowed through the busy marketplace crowd, traveling nearly 1,000 feet (300 m) at speeds between 40 and 60 mph (60 and 100 km/h). The entire sequence of collisions took at least 10 seconds.
By the time the car came to a halt, ten people had been killed and 63 were injured. Weller told investigators he had accidentally placed his foot on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake, then tried to brake but could not stop. Days after the crash, Weller issued a statement saying he was distraught and heartbroken, and his attorney called it an accident.
That's not "science". That's computer engineering and software engineering.
You might actually mean "technology" here.
I watched the video three times. The deceased was crossing in a pitch dark area in between lights and you can NOT see her until about a half second before the car hits her. And unfortunately she was squarely in the middle of the lane. So even if I had been driving and wide awake, focused exclusively ahead and not day dreaming or grooving to some music....I would have plowed into her almost full speed. Certainly not with enough time to evade her or put on the brakes and come to a stop. I MIGHT have been able to slow down 5-10mph if I slammed on the brakes right when I first saw her. And that would NOT have mattered, she would have been just as dead.
It’s unfortunate, but when you watch the video and if you’re honest with yourself, no human driver would have saved her not even a NASCAR driver with split second reflexes.
If anything, it shows how lucky I have been. Because any one of us would have killed that lady and even if we got off criminally and civilly, our mental health and finances would be destroyed.
But they saved the driver from getting crushed by that red light running truck. Quiet Superheroes.These people deserve to be shot. Notice the light is green.
If they were selling this to the general public advertised as fully autonomous, that would be pretty insane. My assumption is that Uber is testing based on the features they have now, and are depending on the human to take over when needed. I think we can all be pretty confident that - barring total lack of federal regulations - no vehicle is going to be sold to the public as a Level 4 or Level 5 vehicle without being able to identify pedestrians wherever they may be.
My aim in posting this wasn't to debate whether the lady should have died, it was to highlight that for some reason Uber hadn't programmed their cars that were being tested on live roads to recognize humans outside of crosswalks.
I'll agree that the code has probably changed significantly since this happened. That said, they probably had to do countless tests to figure out if there were other factors at play that conflicted with the code in question (hardware issues) and looking at the endless lines of code to see if there any conflicting codes...
20 month seems extreme I'll admit, but given the newness of the technology I would guess they wanted to be as thorough as possible to test all other possible factors and ID any solutions and such.
