The future with self-driving cars
-
Let's hope the AI of self-driving cars is better than that of GTA:V
-
Let's hope the AI of self-driving cars is better than that of GTA:V
I wouldn't count on it.
-
I wouldn't count on it.
i would actually... after all look at the acident record of google's self driving cars, those have been on the roads with real people for years (and IIRC over 100k miles) and have been in no major accidents, and the minor ones they've been involved with the self driving car was either in manual mode (being driven by a human) or was not at fault in the accident.
in contrast the driver AI in GTAV has a rather different goal than that of actual driverless cars, they are supposed to simulate "real" drivers and provide entertainment for the actual players of the game. That's rather a different goal than getting from point A to point B safely and without incident.
-
-
I see the flaw in your logic!
what? you know of a better source of randomized behavior than humans* on the freeway during rush hour?
if you do, the chocolate factory would love to hear about it.
* Of course Foxes would be far superior drivers if anyone was actually willing to give us drivers licenses
-
a better source of randomized behavior
loop OP. Random might even work better...
Of course Foxes would be far superior drivers if anyone was actually willing to give us drivers licenses
From what @luhmann is telling us, they are trying that in Belgium.
-
i would actually... after all look at the acident record of google's self driving cars, those have been on the roads with real people for years (and IIRC over 100k miles) and have been in no major accidents, and the minor ones they've been involved with the self driving car was either in manual mode (being driven by a human) or was not at fault in the accident.
Unless I'm mistaken, those cars are only allowed on certain roads e.g. freeways; they're not running around city centres weaving in and out of pedestrians who always cross the road at exactly the wrong moment.in contrast the driver AI in GTAV has a rather different goal than that of actual driverless cars, they are supposed to
simulate "real" driversdrive like morons, cause destruction and mayhem, and provide entertainment for the actual players of the game.
Oh wait, my correction means the same thing...if you do, the chocolate factory would love to hear about it.
?Of course Foxes would be far superior drivers if anyone was actually willing to give us drivers licenses
But you have a license? Or were you wearing your humansuit when they issued it?
-
?
chocolate factory => google.
no i don't know why El Reg calls them that but they do and i like the term.
But you have a license? Or were you wearing your humansuit when they issued it?
/me looks innocentI'm not sure i follow you there
Oh wait, my correction means the same thing...
Unless I'm mistaken, those cars are only allowed on certain roads e.g. freeways; they're not running around city centres weaving in and out of pedestrians who always cross the road at exactly the wrong moment.
Initially they were yes, But the transparency reports that google publishes periodically about the project indicate that they are operating on residential streets as well now.
Waymo - Self-Driving Cars - Autonomous Vehicles - Ride-Hail
Waymo—formerly the Google self-driving car project—makes it safe and easy for people & things to get around with autonomous vehicles. Take a ride now.
-
@RaceProUK said:
But you have a license? Or were you wearing your humansuit when they issued it?
/me looks innocentI'm not sure i follow you there
Did I not explain that in the tooltip?
-
Did I not explain that in the tooltip?
/me continues to look innocent, possibly something to do with plausible denyability
What tooltip?
-
What tooltip?
Edit: And yay, spoilering an emoji renders... nothing. Seriously, it's not in the cooked post.
-
Perhaps If you add spaces between ] and :
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]Edit: Nope.
renders fine outside the spoiler tag, though.
-
i would actually... after all look at the acident record of google's self driving cars, those have been on the roads with real people for years (and IIRC over 100k miles) and have been in no major accidents, and the minor ones they've been involved with the self driving car was either in manual mode (being driven by a human) or was not at fault in the accident.
in contrast the driver AI in GTAV has a rather different goal than that of actual driverless cars, they are supposed to simulate "real" drivers and provide entertainment for the actual players of the game. That's rather a different goal than getting from point A to point B safely and without incident.
Best part about this is they have traveled all over the US roadways. They look very much like normal cars so an unaware driver wouldn't even know if the other car was being driven solely by AI.
Your claim is correct though, not one major accident, only minor fender benders of other people hitting the google cars.
People need to embrace the fact that these cars are significantly better at driving than people are.
-
People need to embrace the fact that these cars are significantly better at driving than people are.
Somehow, I see people kicking and screaming all the way.
-
@Khudzlin @lesniakbj The issue at hand is not if this cars drive better than humans (even a bird would drive better than most humans) but how would the AI would handle a situation like this of full blockade. By trying to avoid the obstacles and running into people who's burning on the ground (GTA style) or by stopping like most humans would?
-
AI is good in stopping before it would run into anything.
The thing a self-driving car would likely have trouble with is coming up with non-standard solution when the situation requires it like bypassing an accident over the shoulder or even the walkway if the road is totally blocked (these are still easy non-standard solutions).
It will also be interesting to see how well the self-driving cars can handle traffic jams between themselves and with some aggressive humans between them. If done well, they could handle it better than humans, but there is pretty big risk of huge grid-lock.
-
how well the self-driving cars can handle traffic jams between themselves and with some aggressive humans between them
-
The issue at hand is not if this cars drive better than humans (even a bird would drive better than most humans) but how would the AI would handle a situation like this of full blockade. By trying to avoid the obstacles and running into people who's burning on the ground (GTA style) or by stopping like most humans would?
The point of AI is that they should never be put into a situation like that in the first place, and in the event they are, make the most logical decision. Where a human would error and make the wrong decision, the AI wouldn't need to make the decision at all because it (theoretically) should not be in a situation where it needs to make a moral decision.
The thing a self-driving car would likely have trouble with is coming up with non-standard solution when the situation requires it like bypassing an accident over the shoulder or even the walkway if the road is totally blocked (these are still easy non-standard solutions).
This is realistically the problem we face with AI drivers (emphasis mine); not necessarily it not stopping/making morally objectionable decisions.
-
should not be in a situation where it needs to make a moral decision.
How does one avoid such situations?
-
How does one avoid such situations?
People tend to rush to get to places. They speed. They text. They do things they shouldn't be doing while driving. This causes situations where a person, who is now clearly distracted, needs to make a split second decision.
The AI vehicle would avoid this by never being put in that situation in the first place. Combined with significantly faster decision making / reaction times, it almost becomes a non-issue.
Sure someone might still run in front of the vehicle (in the usual presentation of AI "moral" dilemmas), but that's a moral decision at this point, it's logical one (stop the car as fast as possible).
-
Sure someone might still run in front of the vehicle (in the usual presentation of AI "moral" dilemmas), but that's a moral decision at this point, it's logical one (stop the car as fast as possible).
Steering and braking combined is often more effective than braking alone -- but the decision on which way to steer is complex and depends on whether you're dealing with someone who is still moving, "deer in the headlights" frozen, or has reversed direction, as well as whether there are more pedestrians entering the street.
-
Steering and braking combined is often more effective than braking alone -- but the decision on which way to steer is complex and depends on whether you're dealing with someone who is still moving, "deer in the headlights" frozen, or has reversed direction, as well as whether there are more pedestrians entering the street.
Correct, but a computer can collect, analyze and model all of those distinct variables. From there it can model the predicted motion of the obstruction, all in a fraction of second compared to a distracted human.
-
@lesniakbj Re: Computers not doing stuff like "texting".
Just for fun, I thought I would throw this in:
What would happen if the AI car was checking / downloading and update - I know my PC (auto update ON) tends to devote just about all it's resources and effort doing this, especially at "switch on time". And then we have the "...will reboot (and you ain't going to stop me) in..." stuff.
:)
-
And then we have the "...will reboot (and you ain't going to stop me) in..." stuff.
I imagine the self driving car will have, as part of its reboot steps, "pull over to the side of the road and come to a complete stop. Bonus points if you cna contrive to stop in the shady part of town without arousing suspicion from your occupants"
-
Next thing will be notifications in the dashboard.
-
That's true. But let's be honest: If you have a split second to react, how much thought will actually flow into those "moral dilemmas"?
I mean, this is stuff you can ponder on for millenia and you have a mere second. If that much.
That's what secure driving training is about: To teach you about such situations before they happen so you don't react in the wrong way, precisely because you don't have the time to think it through. Basically, with untrained people, it's a crapshoot on whether they'll react correctly or not.
-
You're talking about computers that run non-real time operating systems, consumer OS's.
These embedded systems all have strict timing requirements, and run specialized real time control software. It doesnt just decide to auto update, and most commands/functions of the controller will be non-blocking.
They shouldn't even have OS's (unless its a small RTOS) installed as they would take too much precious space. A scheduler is about all thats needed.
-
I wasn't hiring a prostitute, officer, she was giving me technical support after my car rebooted.
-
-
humansuit
Oh sweet dear lord shudders
These embedded systems
As far as I know, self driving cars are very much NOT embedded systems. They are incredibly powerful computers. Which of course brings up the wonderful topic of bugs
-
Oh sweet dear lord shudders
/me wanders over idly squeeking a squeeky toy
Yes, is that a problem?
-
no no no no problem
oh god please don't wear me as a suit
-
oh god please don't wear me as a suit
hmm...... why would i do that? you would be far more fun to simply puppet!
-
Edit to actually add to the conversation:
I still don't have much faith in driverless cars. Also I have a completely silly and selfish reason to dislike them. I enjoy driving
-
-
-
Self-driving cars — phooey! I want flying cars. They promised us we'd have flying cars in the future. WHERE ARE THEY
-
Look, if you are going to make this joke, at least pick a beetle that is pertinent to the current discussion:
-
You know, that makes me think that Lord Shudders would be a rather good name for some sort of undead boss monster. GIS is unhelpful though.
-
-
Look, if you are going to make this joke, at least pick a beetle that is pertinent to the current discussion:
<obDumbass>
You misspelled beatle!
</obDumbass>[size=5]Damn, there I go, dating myself again.
[/size]Filed under: my entomology professor would have been proud.
-
I think you meant to post this picture:
-
What would happen if the AI car was checking / downloading and update - I know my PC (auto update ON) tends to devote just about all it's resources and effort doing this, especially at "switch on time". And then we have the "...will reboot (and you ain't going to stop me) in..." stuff.
I know a lot of software engineers aren't very good at their jobs, but I would hope that someone would think to put in a check to make sure the car isn't currently driving before doing something like applying updates.
-
I know a lot of software engineers aren't very good at their jobs, but I would hope that someone would think to put in a check to make sure the car isn't currently driving before doing something like applying updates.
This is the sort of things us, software engineers, have no word on. Better ask the BA or PM.
-
Volkswagen, back of.
-
Yes. But it's not a
bugbeatlebeetle It's a feature
-
Oh man, my windshield looked like that when I drove through Utah in a PT Cruiser. Ugh.
Took like 5 hours to hose that shit out of my grill.
-
-
You've got the PT cruiser, windshield and grill, but you didn't label Utah or shit.
-
Ok, I got this:
I'm sure somebody else can find it in themselves to provide what's left
Herbie - Wikipedia
