Tesla autopilot update

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I can't verify since I've never fact checked it myself but I've heard they've already had AI racing for some time.  In truth, it's something they should pick up really quickly.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they could already beat human drivers.  imo, it's road driving in highly complex scenarios that's a lot more impressive, and also a lot more relevant, and thus that's the thing they should be showcasing.

They are working on it now, see my previous post. Hardest part is getting the AI cars to race each other in a tight circuit, getting them round one quickly individually while hard isn't nearly as challenging as doing it with 10+ AI cars going full speed around each other.

 

Edit:

Currently 8% slower than a competitive driver it seems from their latest video.

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They are working on it now, see my previous post. Hardest part is getting the AI cars to race each other in a tight circuit, getting them round one quickly individually while hard isn't nearly as challenging as doing it with 10+ AI cars going full speed around each other.

 

Edit:

Currently 8% slower than a competitive driver it seems from their latest video.

Yeah I'd imagine getting one car to drive the best possible time would be pretty easy relatively speaking compared with a true race.

 

And those numbers are good  

[leadeater]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah I'd imagine getting one car to drive the best possible time would be pretty easy relatively speaking compared with a true race.

 

And those numbers are good  

Powered by the same Nvidia drive computer used in Tesla vehicles too 

[The Benjamins]

one thing that is not spoken about a lot is who is liable for the car crash if it is a self driving car?

will the manufacture have to pay for repairs?

would the rider need insurance?

[vanished]

11 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

one thing that is not spoken about a lot is who is liable for the car crash if it is a self driving car?

will the manufacture have to pay for repairs?

would the rider need insurance?

If the system has any sense at all, it will be the company that made the self driving system.  Some car makers (volvo I think it was for one) have already come out and said that's how they will do things when it comes time.

 

Charging the person in the drivers seat if they're not actually driving would be utterly idiotic, so it will probably happen  

[The Benjamins]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

If the system has any sense at all, it will be the company that made the self driving system.  Some car makers (volvo I think it was for one) have already come out and said that's how they will do things when it comes time.

 

Charging the person in the drivers seat if they're not actually driving would be utterly idiotic, so it will probably happen  

ya agree, it is just another thing that needs to be defined in the law.

[vanished]

15 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

ya agree, it is just another thing that needs to be defined in the law.

Absolutely, just to be safe.  Although it would be a sad day to realize that the existing law doesn't already imply this in some way. One would think that it is written in a way where "the operator of the vehicle is at fault when their actions lead to an accident".  And if so, adding a special case for self driving wouldn't be necessary.

[ChineseChef]

From what I have read, to effectively reduce traffic such that it would remove traffic jams would require less than 50% AI driven cars on any given section of road.  That said, not sure if I believe that.  Lots of the claims and hype around AI cars seems to be way overblown on ability and timelines and the effects it will have.

 

Also, regarding Telsa, my only real complaint about their Autopilot is the name and public perception of that name.  The common public thinks Autopilot means fully autonomous driving, like in the movies.  Tesla knew this, and knew they could capitalize on peoples ignorance.  So they can claim they have Autopilot, meaning that it will maintain speed and heading, but they know the public will think it is fully autodrive.  Which is why they got in trouble in one country (can't remember where), simply because of the naming and implied abilities.  (in spite of their wall of text disclaimer about the capabilities of autopilot)

 

 

Another thing a lot of people are forgetting.  With AI cars, you wont get to decide to do anything the government doesn't like.  Protests in some area?  Your cars will auto route around it so no one sees it.  Or they will claim national security and route all cars away, or won't let you go.  You won't have to pay to own a car anymore!!!  Every car you "rent" will be filled with ad screens that you can't turn off without paying extra.  Think black mirror.  How easy would it be to segregate the poor or "undesirable" people by simply charging more for them to leave "their" areas?  Need to go to that big meeting/interview/important event, and your rent-a-car is filthy inside?  Gotta wait for the next one and be late or risk getting filthy.

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Absolutely, just to be safe.  Although it would be a sad day to realize that the existing law doesn't already imply this in some way. One would think that it is written in a way where "the operator of the vehicle is at fault when their actions lead to an accident".  And if so, adding a special case for self driving wouldn't be necessary.

I like the idea of self-driving cars, but what about the infamous situation where the car has to choose whether to crash into a wall and most likely kill the passenger(s) or drive into a few people that turned out to walk right in the middle of the road? Assume no other choices besides crashing and running over a few people. How is the self-driving module supposed to handle those situations?

I personally would never sit in a car programmed to kill me if it endangers lives of other people. I know it's selfish, but from my point of view, it's my life > lives of other people.

On the other hand killing people is not good (It's not terrible, but it's certainly not good) so how to solve it?

[vanished]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

I like the idea of self-driving cars, but what about the infamous situation where the car has to choose whether to crash into a wall and most likely kill the passenger(s) or drive into a few people that turned out to walk right in the middle of the road? Assume no other choices besides crashing and running over a few people. How is the self-driving module supposed to handle those situations?

I personally would never sit in a car programmed to kill me if it endangers lives of other people. I know it's selfish, but from my point of view, it's my life > lives of other people.

On the other hand killing people is not good (It's not terrible, but it's certainly not good) so how to solve it?

Every time I hear this brought up I take one step back and think "how would this ever happen?"

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

Also, regarding Telsa, my only real complaint about their Autopilot is the name and public perception of that name.  The common public thinks Autopilot means fully autonomous driving, like in the movies.  Tesla knew this, and knew they could capitalize on peoples ignorance.  So they can claim they have Autopilot, meaning that it will maintain speed and heading, but they know the public will think it is fully autodrive.  Which is why they got in trouble in one country (can't remember where), simply because of the naming and implied abilities.  (in spite of their wall of text disclaimer about the capabilities of autopilot)

And rightfully so.  As I stated in the first comment, I really hated this system and them when it came out for these reasons.  Glad to see it's moving in the right direction.

Quote

Another thing a lot of people are forgetting.  With AI cars, you wont get to decide to do anything the government doesn't like.  Protests in some area?  Your cars will auto route around it so no one sees it.  Or they will claim national security and route all cars away, or won't let you go.  You won't have to pay to own a car anymore!!!  Every car you "rent" will be filled with ad screens that you can't turn off without paying extra.  Think black mirror.  How easy would it be to segregate the poor or "undesirable" people by simply charging more for them to leave "their" areas?  Need to go to that big meeting/interview/important event, and your rent-a-car is filthy inside?  Gotta wait for the next one and be late or risk getting filthy.

Well that went all 1984 very fast

[ChineseChef]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Every time I hear this brought up I take one step back and think "how would this ever happen?"

I can't agree with you more.  All of these "who does the car kill" scenarios rely on the car making stupid human decisions that put it in a no win scenario.

My questions are always:

Why is the car going so fast it can't react?

Why did the car drive that speed without the appropriate vision data to see where it would be?

What is this magical scenario and how often do human drives face it today? 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, ChineseChef said:

I can't agree with you more.  All of these "who does the car kill" scenarios rely on the car making stupid human decisions that put it in a no win scenario.

My questions are always:

Why is the car going so fast it can't react?

Why did the car drive that speed without the appropriate vision data to see where it would be?

What is this magical scenario and how often do human drives face it today? 

Yeah, not even human drivers have to decide between running someone over and hitting a wall killing themselves very often, and people are completely stupid and incompetent compared to how a good AI system could and would drive, so I am not particularly worried about this coming up.

[ChineseChef]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well that went all 1984 very fast

I mean, sort of.  Look at what the modern gov'ts want to do.  Lock down the internet.  Full control of all online access.  Complete monitoring of all communications.

 

They look at 1984 as a guidebook, not a warning.  The funny thing is Orwell thought the gov't would have to force this stuff on us.  He never thought we would be begging for it.

[vanished]

Just now, ChineseChef said:

I mean, sort of.  Look at what the modern gov'ts want to do.  Lock down the internet.  Full control of all online access.  Complete monitoring of all communications.

 

They look at 1984 as a guidebook, not a warning.  The funny thing is Orwell thought the gov't would have to force this stuff on us.  He never thought we would be begging for it.

The problem is that all the tech we want can be abused by governments that forget they're supposed to be serving the people, not suppressing them, for things like you described.  It's not that we want the oppression, but they betray us every time.

[ChineseChef]

8 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

-what about the infamous situation where the car has to choose whether to crash into a wall and most likely kill the passenger(s) or drive into a few people that turned out to walk right in the middle of the road?-

 

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah, not even human drivers have to decide between running someone over and hitting a wall killing themselves very often, and people are completely stupid and incompetent compared to how a good AI system could and would drive, so I am not particularly worried about this coming up.

 

One thing you have to think about too.  From a legal standpoint, if the car is programmed to choose between killing people, if it chooses to kill anyone it has been programed to murder by the company that made it.  It (the company that made the car programming) will then be 100% liable for killing whoever dies.

 

The car will have to be programmed to stop as safely as possible.  Regardless of all other factors.  It will have to act with the sole purpose of preserving the safety of the occupants.  Or it will be considered fully liable for any harm done to the occupants.  And it will thus have to act indifferent to whatever it is trying to avoid hitting.

[The Benjamins]

14 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I like the idea of self-driving cars, but what about the infamous situation where the car has to choose whether to crash into a wall and most likely kill the passenger(s) or drive into a few people that turned out to walk right in the middle of the road? Assume no other choices besides crashing and running over a few people. How is the self-driving module supposed to handle those situations?

I personally would never sit in a car programmed to kill me if it endangers lives of other people. I know it's selfish, but from my point of view, it's my life > lives of other people.

On the other hand killing people is not good (It's not terrible, but it's certainly not good) so how to solve it?

it is simple, Driver > everything else.

the process to evaluate otherwise would not fit into the 50 ms it has to decide.

and any man power put to the process to determine the best outcome should be put to making a system avoid the problem all together.

no matter the decision someone will be unhappy.

[Trixanity]

35 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

it is simple, Driver > everything else.

the process to evaluate otherwise would not fit into the 50 ms it has to decide.

and any man power put to the process to determine the best outcome should be put to making a system avoid the problem all together.

no matter the decision someone will be unhappy.

And isn't 50 ms like ten times faster than any human can react and act on a given situation? And therefore won't be put into that situation as it'll 'disarm' the situation immediately. Not to mention the likelihood of a human driver making one or more errors in a split-second decision like that.

[The Benjamins]

Just now, Trixanity said:

And isn't 50 ms like ten times faster than any human can react and act on a given situation? And therefore won't be put into that situation as it'll 'disarm' the situation immediately. Not to mention the likelihood of a human driver making one or more errors in a split-second decision like that.

i grab 50ms out of the air but in the time window for reaction is very small. and ya a human, even F1 driver level will struggle to make a difference in a situation like that.

[vanished]

55 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

i grab 50ms out of the air but in the time window for reaction is very small. and ya a human, even F1 driver level will struggle to make a difference in a situation like that.

Human reaction time is typically 200 - 250 ms for something as simple as hitting a button when they see a signal.  If you factor in anything more complex like needing the decide where to steer and why, it obviously only goes up from there.

[The Benjamins]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Human reaction time is typically 200 - 250 ms for something as simple as hitting a button when they see a signal.  If you factor in anything more complex like needing the decide where to steer and why, it obviously only goes up from there.

ya, peoples reaction would be a pre meditated action like swerve to miss a person or do slide correction maneuver, no thinking involved.

 

I feel in a lose of control situation the AI should but the cars occupants at its top priority, safety wise. and any amount of programming to determine "who should die" should really be put to avoiding that situation. If it is ever in that situation is has failed.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

ya, peoples reaction would be a pre meditated action like swerve to miss a person or do slide correction maneuver, no thinking involved.

 

I feel in a lose of control situation the AI should but the cars occupants at its top priority, safety wise. and any amount of programming to determine "who should die" should really be put to avoiding that situation. If it is ever in that situation is has failed.

Yeah, the action people take the vast majority of the time, I think, would be to crash in a way that avoids hitting anything living, unless it means killing themselves, and honestly that's probably how the cars should be programmed.  But yeah, if they're designed well, they shouldn't ever need to even make that choice.

[Juanitology]

On 6/16/2017 at 8:29 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

Somewhat. I don't mean so hard as to require a Scandinavian Flick, but harder than merely driving the block. Demonstration of good decision making would help too. 

This ^ what the DMV doesn't get it that driving properly is about more than just physically being able to properly steer and control a car. You are in control of a killing machine, and you need to be able to make split-second decisions without losing control and without making the wrong choice. That's a tall order for sure, which is why many countries which have the lowest accident and death rates coincidentally have some of the hardest driving exams and license requirements. 

 

Having a driver's license is seen by many as a given, something you're entitled to. But you're not. You're not entitled to anything. You should not be allowed to operate a machine that can kill people until you can show that you're able to do so in consistent and safe manner. 

[The Benjamins]

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah, the action people take the vast majority of the time, I think, would be to crash in a way that avoids hitting anything living, unless it means killing themselves, and honestly that's probably how the cars should be programmed.  But yeah, if they're designed well, they shouldn't ever need to even make that choice.

Ya i would see it be programmed to avoid object on a simple scale and it would correct to minimize the collision.

Like solid objects and living objects is high avoidance, grass and bushes is low avoidance.

[vanished]

10 minutes ago, Terodius said:

This ^ what the DMV doesn't get it that driving properly is about more than just physically being able to properly steer and control a car. You are in control of a killing machine, and you need to be able to make split-second decisions without losing control and without making the wrong choice. That's a tall order for sure, which is why many countries which have the lowest accident and death rates coincidentally have some of the hardest driving exams and license requirements. 

 

Having a driver's license is seen by many as a given, something you're entitled to. But you're not. You're not entitled to anything. You should not be allowed to operate a machine that can kill people until you can show that you're able to do so in consistent and safe manner. 

Sadly the testing systems in so many places including here are sorely lacking imo.  There is no testing to prove you can control a slide for example, ridiculous considering you could end up in one pretty damn easily at least 4 months out of the year.  Even the testing of proving you have a good sense of manoeuvring the vehicle in a calm and normal manner, like parking, etc. is not what it should be.  And then there's the testing to prove you can follow rules ... sure they check you stop at stop signs and only turn when it's safe but this testing is pretty much absent compared to what it should be.  If it was adequate, you wouldn't see people on their phones or drunk while driving.