1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3509
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:43 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
stilettoblade wrote:Or the survivors will be the ones that were the very best at it...

Still I think that the people that are the very best at being murderers are not the worst of them.

I'm one of the worst murderers in the world:

Kill count: 0

madaco
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby madaco » Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:49 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
madaco wrote:"grey tribe"

?

First hit on Bing says they're "a libertarian-minded tribe of of live-and-let-livers".

So, I agree.

"?"

(I'm also doing that head-tilt thing your dog does, here.)


I, remembered something wrong, and am now confused about where I saw something.

By grey tribe I meant to refer to it in the sense described by Scott of Slate Star Codex,

I thought I had seen something somewhere about the grey tribe having historical precedent in a sort of security/capability mindset and an associated profession. A profession that is concerned with "What means do we have available, and what means are whatever adversaries might arise likely to have available? And, how can we arrange things in order to establish whatever goals we have? (In a relatively value-neutral way of comparing objectives to means)."

I cannot remember what profession this was supposed to be? I thought it was something military related, but soldiers and police was I thought associated with red tribe in this analysis, (while scientists and artists would be associated with blue tribe) so that doesn't seem to fit as much?

I am very confused, and can't find the blog post I saw this version of the idea in. I was under the misconception that it was in one of the main posts about the framework. (Maybe it was a comment on a post?).

Maybe the profession was uh, [the thing where a group hires their military services to different countries, rather than exclusively to their country of origin. I can't remember the word for this.]?

I don't remember and I am very confused.

Edit: fixed a grammatical error
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:32 pm UTC

So you're wondering if Cueball is "grey tribe" because he forgets that most people aren't murderers because, well, people could murder so you've gotta plan for that, which is thinking typical of security professionals who are usually "grey tribe"?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

madaco
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby madaco » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:33 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:So you're wondering if Cueball is "grey tribe" because he forgets that most people aren't murderers because, well, people could murder so you've gotta plan for that, which is thinking typical of security professionals who are usually "grey tribe"?


Approximately, yeah.

(Caveats:

1: my thinking that security (or something like that) professionals have a grey tribe tendency is quite possibly due to remembering something wrong.

2: I don't know if I was necessarily wondering if he is grey tribe, so much as whether it would make sense to consider this particular behavior of his to be, uh, grey tribe -ish? But it isn't really a precisely defined category so the distinction between these two questions might not be significant.

)

But yeah, that was the gist of my question/wondering.

Thank you for trimming it down to something concise enough to deal with!

(My question/wondering was somewhat based in confusion and misrememberings, and might not have made a lot of sense.)
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3413
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:24 am UTC

chenille wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:In which case, they'll be isolated enough to not have the opportunity to murder (they may not have started isolated, but they ended that way...)

So "self-correcting" in the same sense that the heat-death of the universe would be self-correcting: everything you care about might be gone, but you don't have to worry about the same thing happening a second time afterward.


Or, at least, by the time you can respond to it with a reactive patch, it's a moot point...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3509
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:12 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
chenille wrote:So "self-correcting" in the same sense that the heat-death of the universe would be self-correcting: everything you care about might be gone, but you don't have to worry about the same thing happening a second time afterward.
Or, at least, by the time you can respond to it with a reactive patch, it's a moot point...

The Last Question.

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:04 am UTC

Problems I'm seeing in Aberdeen/Blackdog at the moment, which may confuse machine vision over humans.

New roads (so not covered by GPS)
No lines on the road (both new and existing)
Driving against lane markings (instead of having two lanes in each direction, we are all on one half of the road with a lane each way and traffic cones down the middle. There are arrows on the road, but they can be pointing at you. Not to mention the odd drifting cone blown sideways by lorries)
Hand written signs (machine vision has to read handwriting to know where the diversion is going)
Vandalised signs (someone spray painting a 1 at the start of a 40mph sign might be something you can program it to ignore, but what if someone made a 10 look like a 40?)
Bad sign placement (normally the diversion sign is before the turn off, I have seen some placed after the turning. Even the locals had to take a second trip round the diversions before they spotted the way home)
Poor sign wording (The town is known as Blackdog. Next to it is Blackdog Industrial Estate then Blackdog Rifle Range. Diversions can't just mention the town name as the computer would have you in the first turning and on to the rifle range. The actual diversion sign said a street name in the town. If that wasn't the street you had told the computer to go to, would it take the car down that diversion?
And the actual route in to the town one weekend left it up to the driver to decide if they wanted to drive straight (up a dirt farm track that is on satnav) or turn right (on to a new road that wasn't on satnav and that had no lines painted on it.)

We also have problem with idiots who think it is fun to move diversion signs at night to feed you into traffic and idiot workmen who pointed traffic down a road with a deep trench dug across it in the middle of the night. The latter damaged a car (minor bumps to passengers) and nearly got a bus. Thankfully the bus driver decided to see what was up rather than overtake the stationary car.

The problem being, you are not going to be able to program the car to cover every eventuality. What does it do when it finds one it can't handle? Stopping might be an option, but if that problem is not seeing a truck, then you have the self drive Tesla problem again.

Want to test a self driving car? I have a good place in mind.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:16 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:I'm one of the worst murderers in the world:

Kill count: 0

Yet.

You can be a time vulture.

Wee Red Bird wrote:Hand written signs (machine vision has to read handwriting to know where the diversion is going)

In ten years from now, it could be the other way around: road workers would put the virtual signs into the online database for self-driving cars to read, but completely forget to put the physical signs on the road for live people to see.

User avatar
pkcommando
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:22 pm UTC
Location: Allston, MA

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby pkcommando » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:47 pm UTC

DataGenetics wrote:There's also the issue that self-driving cars might turn people into jerks
http://datagenetics.com/blog/january42017/index.html

TL;DR - If you know a car is going to stop when you step into the street, why not simply step into the street whenever you like?

Not even a hypothetical - see Boston. And we should all be deeply afraid.

Of course, the Boston example assumes the people have put any effort into paying attention to oncoming traffic, or thought about whether or not cars can/will stop. After 12.5 years, I'm still not sure anyone can answer that.
"The Universe is for raptors now!" say Raptors, as they take over all of Universe.

paha arkkitehti
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:18 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby paha arkkitehti » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:01 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:Problems I'm seeing in Aberdeen/Blackdog at the moment, which may confuse machine vision over humans.

New roads (so not covered by GPS)
No lines on the road (both new and existing)
Driving against lane markings (instead of having two lanes in each direction, we are all on one half of the road with a lane each way and traffic cones down the middle. There are arrows on the road, but they can be pointing at you. Not to mention the odd drifting cone blown sideways by lorries)
Hand written signs (machine vision has to read handwriting to know where the diversion is going)
Vandalised signs (someone spray painting a 1 at the start of a 40mph sign might be something you can program it to ignore, but what if someone made a 10 look like a 40?)
Bad sign placement (normally the diversion sign is before the turn off, I have seen some placed after the turning. Even the locals had to take a second trip round the diversions before they spotted the way home)
Poor sign wording (The town is known as Blackdog. Next to it is Blackdog Industrial Estate then Blackdog Rifle Range. Diversions can't just mention the town name as the computer would have you in the first turning and on to the rifle range. The actual diversion sign said a street name in the town. If that wasn't the street you had told the computer to go to, would it take the car down that diversion?
And the actual route in to the town one weekend left it up to the driver to decide if they wanted to drive straight (up a dirt farm track that is on satnav) or turn right (on to a new road that wasn't on satnav and that had no lines painted on it.)

We also have problem with idiots who think it is fun to move diversion signs at night to feed you into traffic and idiot workmen who pointed traffic down a road with a deep trench dug across it in the middle of the night. The latter damaged a car (minor bumps to passengers) and nearly got a bus. Thankfully the bus driver decided to see what was up rather than overtake the stationary car.

The problem being, you are not going to be able to program the car to cover every eventuality. What does it do when it finds one it can't handle? Stopping might be an option, but if that problem is not seeing a truck, then you have the self drive Tesla problem again.

Want to test a self driving car? I have a good place in mind.


If self driving cars are going to become commonplace, it would seem obvious to change the signage to be machine readable without resorting to machine vision. A hand written, snow covered, badly worded or vandalized signs should never be an issue for a true autonomous car, as the actual information would be fed via internet or some other type of wireless communication.

The infrastructure needs to change to better suit new modes of transportation. There's nothing new in doing that: we didn't have multi-lane highways back in the day either. Uploading a patch to a "road management system" during construction work will be as commonplace as setting up cones and temporary signage is today.

Machine vision should be limited to actual accident avoidance, with normal navigation done by other type of systems.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4869
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby HES » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:15 pm UTC

Ninja'd, posting anyway.
Wee Red Bird wrote:Problems I'm seeing in Aberdeen/Blackdog at the moment, which may confuse machine vision over humans.

Out of date mapping is laziness - when accurate digital mapping becomes a necessity, more emphasis will be placed on ensuring it is updated. It's not like we don't have the technology.

For roadworks and temporary traffic management, I envisage digital beacons that communicate with cars to guide them as necessary, either by uploading the diversion route for closures, or local positioning beacons to guide around hazards. Even permanent signs and lines are likely to change.

I should note, a lot of the things in your list are perfectly capable of confusing human drivers too - particularly misleading signage.

Wee Red Bird wrote:Hand written signs
Those shouldn't be a thing. I'd be curious to see an example.
He/Him/His Image

speising
Posts: 2267
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby speising » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:20 pm UTC

the problem with digital road infrastructure: there will be iBeacons, Google beacons, Amazon beacons, and Tesla beacons, each talking only to their respective brand of car.
And the municipality wil only buy from one of them.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:27 pm UTC

speising wrote:the problem with digital road infrastructure: there will be iBeacons, Google beacons, Amazon beacons, and Tesla beacons,

*) subject to FCC approval

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4869
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby HES » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:31 pm UTC

It will have to be regulated and standardised. Which, knowing how great governments are with technology, will not happen fast enough. So I wouldn't invest in any Mk.I hardware...
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:42 pm UTC

paha arkkitehti wrote:Machine vision should be limited to actual accident avoidance, with normal navigation done by other type of systems.
That is wrong on so many levels. Machine vision (sensing what's really there) should be used for all primary driving tasks. Navigation should be suggested by GPS and other mapping technologies, but neither people nor machines should drive blind. This fiction that mapping is necessary to machine driving is really just an excuse to get more surveillance data.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Crissa » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:23 pm UTC

What gets me is...

...None of these 'what ifs' do humans handle safely. Handwritten signs? Most should stop. Do Humans? An AI would. Bad lane markings. You probably should stop. An AI would. Do humans? Bad direction in a construction zone. You're supposed to stop. An AI would.

So why do we care if an AI decides to stop and call for help when these edge cases happen? That's what should happen.

Sensors fouled at 70 mph? The car stops. What does a human driver do if blinded at 70mph? This happens! Why is the AI case unique?

-Crissa

PS, my blindspot sensors are radar, not sonar. Every manufacturer has chosen different, and sometimes overlapping sensors. Lane following is usually a mix of 3D vision, 1D radar, and in the more autonomous lidar or 3d radar. When the radar says 'SOLID OBJECT' the car stops. When the vision fails, it says 'Lane following disabled' and stops the car (asks the human to take over, since a human can take liability and crane their neck.) Mor autonomy means more sensors. Humans only have that one 3D vision on a swivel. Which is great, but it's no radar collision avoidance.

ucim wrote:This fiction that mapping is necessary to machine driving is really just an excuse to get more surveillance data.

Actually... No.

You're right that machine vision (that mix of sensors it uses to see) should be what it uses to drive, primarily. But the mapping... Human drivers are constantly doing this. We memorize the curves, the pot holes, the traffic diversions. AI is no different. One Google (Waymo) car that passes a path memorizes it. The next Google car to pass through there can 'remember' and spend more time looking at the differences, speeding up pattern matches for obstacles. Because every Google car is all one AI. They all share their memories. Just like any human driver would remember the paths they took.
Last edited by Crissa on Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

StCredZero
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby StCredZero » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:29 pm UTC

What the world really needs is for a way to push out a firmware update that turns people into murderers.

DanD
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby DanD » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:01 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:What gets me is...

...None of these 'what ifs' do humans handle safely. Handwritten signs? Most should stop. Do Humans? An AI would. Bad lane markings. You probably should stop. An AI would. Do humans? Bad direction in a construction zone. You're supposed to stop. An AI would.

So why do we care if an AI decides to stop and call for help when these edge cases happen? That's what should happen.

Sensors fouled at 70 mph? The car stops. What does a human driver do if blinded at 70mph? This happens! Why is the AI case unique?

-Crissa


This. Humans are lousy at handling unexpected situations. We routinely overdrive our headlights, we don't slow enough in wet or icy conditions. We distract easily even on normal roads, let alone maneuvering around an accident or through construction. The criteria for a self driving car should not be "is it perfect", but "is it better than a human". And we are reaching that point very quickly if we are not already there.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:17 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
This fiction that mapping is necessary to machine driving is really just an excuse to get more surveillance data.
Actually... No.
Actually... Yes.

Humans use maps in a crude way to hint at where they ought to steer. They use their eyes to fine-tune this. An AI doesn't need more than this; it should not be navigating by rote, but by sense. I want cars to respond to where the road is, not where it should be.

Crissa wrote:But the mapping... Human drivers are constantly doing this. We memorize the curves, the pot holes...
...and this information is not very interesting. I have no problems with AI doing this, and even sharing it to make them drive better. But they also pick up the other patterns around them... which car tends to be in front of which house at what times... who is crossing the road (and later, down the block, and later, going into the {whatever}... and that information, while presently crude, will only get better and more detailed. The information is as commercially (and otherwise!) valuable as the breadcrumbs we drop when we go online; boring by themselves, but damning taken together. It's also not needed by cars or by drivers.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

DanD
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby DanD » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:55 pm UTC

ucim wrote:]...and this information is not very interesting. I have no problems with AI doing this, and even sharing it to make them drive better. But they also pick up the other patterns around them... which car tends to be in front of which house at what times... who is crossing the road (and later, down the block, and later, going into the {whatever}... and that information, while presently crude, will only get better and more detailed. The information is as commercially (and otherwise!) valuable as the breadcrumbs we drop when we go online; boring by themselves, but damning taken together. It's also not needed by cars or by drivers.

Jose


You're talking about a culture that is, in the main, putting always on microphones in their living rooms. One more piece of potential surveillance technology is hardly the straw that broke the camel's back.

Pabb
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:33 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Pabb » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:17 pm UTC

I can't help but think about the Sim City 1 solution: no roads, no cars, just railroads and trains everywhere. I think everyone could manage if you could catch some train at least within a 30 minute walking range, at every one hour interval, 24/7, in the most rural of environments in the middle of the night, going up in frequency as you get closer to population centers and busy times of the day.

I would much more readily trust self-driving trains in a controlled environment where actors consist only of self-driving trains.

Of course the cost of of removing roads alone will keep this idea from ever becoming anything else, and there's probably tons of holes I haven't considered.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:34 pm UTC

DanD wrote:You're talking about a culture that is, in the main, putting always on microphones in their living rooms.
Yes. It's creepy.
Pabb wrote:I think everyone could manage if you could catch some train at least within a 30 minute walking range, at every one hour interval, 24/7, in the most rural of environments in the middle of the night...
...in snow, sleet, and freezing rain.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:41 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Machine vision (sensing what's really there) should be used for all primary driving tasks. Navigation should be suggested by GPS and other mapping technologies,

Actually, machine vision for cars is (mostly) mapping. Building a 3+1D map from visual clues.

Vision for moving humans is mapping too.

ucim wrote:but neither people nor machines should drive blind. This fiction that mapping is necessary to machine driving is really just an excuse to get more surveillance data.

The first statement contradicts the second one. Machine driving without mapping is blind.

ucim wrote:But they also pick up the other patterns around them... which car tends to be in front of which house at what times...

I also do it. Shall I be blinded?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:10 am UTC

Kit. wrote:The first statement contradicts the second one. Machine driving without mapping is blind.
No, not at all. You don't need a map to drive safely. A map is only needed to decide where to drive to and how to get there. But the hard parts; the staying on the road, not hitting things or scaring others into doing so, not modifying the bodywork on the fly... none of that needs a map.
Kit. wrote:I also do it [(pick up the other patterns)]. Shall I be blinded?
Maybe, if you compile the results, correlate it with other drivers, and sell the data to the highest bidder. But not if you just keep it to yourself.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Old Bruce » Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:35 am UTC

Pabb wrote:I can't help but think about the Sim City 1 solution: no roads, no cars, just railroads and trains everywhere....
...and there's probably tons of holes I haven't considered.

Those tons, are they weight or mass?
[snarky-wink-face emoticon] [smiley-face emoticon]

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:00 am UTC

And since a hole is an absence of material, is a ton-mass of hole actually negative one ton, as in that's the mass that's absent?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3509
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:23 am UTC

Too ambiguous. Stick to tonnes of holes, or suffer being maybe up to 240lbs/t out of tolerance.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:24 am UTC

elasto wrote:You may say you'll never hand over control of your vehicle to AI because you've seen how AI can go wrong... But when it comes to getting a car for your kids, would you trust their driving skills over an AI car? Those same teenagers who - no matter how much you might warn them - might still be showing off to their mates, or coming back from a party where who knows what got imbibed, or who knows how late it might be and how tired they are..? Statistics for that age group shows that that decision is definitely not so clear cut...

Calling it right now: This right here is how self-driving cars will become the norm. In fact, this might be a rare case where "think of the children" is the overwhelming driving force behind accepting a new technology rather than opposing it.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:49 am UTC

ucim wrote:You don't need a map to drive safely. A map is only needed to decide where to drive to and how to get there. But the hard parts; the staying on the road, not hitting things or scaring others into doing so, not modifying the bodywork on the fly... none of that needs a map.

It would be very nice of you to share your idea how to do that without maintaining a local map, because people who develop autonomous cars for a living keep telling me at weekly team meetings that it's impossible, and maintaining such a map is indeed the hard part.

ucim wrote:Maybe, if you compile the results, correlate it with other drivers, and sell the data to the highest bidder. But not if you just keep it to yourself.

Doesn't exclusive sale of the collected information defeat the point of sharing it between cars?

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:41 pm UTC

HES wrote:
Wee Red Bird wrote:Hand written signs
Those shouldn't be a thing. I'd be curious to see an example.


I'll have to get a photograph of one. The one I saw recently was a pre-made sign with a blank space for a name. Eg "FOR ACCESS TO _______ FOLLOW DIVERSIONS" A sign that they can easily stick a name on to without having to get one made up in advance.
But the apprentice forgot to take the box of sticky letters with them so all they have is a black marker pen.
I have seen fully hand written signs. Will have to keep the camera ready.

But even official signs can have mistakes...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/54358 ... ad-One-Job

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:54 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:It would be very nice of you to share your idea how to do that without maintaining a local map, because people who develop autonomous cars for a living keep telling me at weekly team meetings that it's impossible, and maintaining such a map is indeed the hard part.
How do you do it? Imagine for a moment that you're visiting Fred, in a different country, and he wants to go somewhere; he knows how to get there but he doesn't know where it is. He can't drive either. "Ok, I'll take you there" because you can drive. Fred rides shotgun and tells you when to turn left, when to turn right... but you are the one whose hands are on the wheel and whose responsibility it is to not modify the car enroute. This is the thing that your developers are saying is impossible. I'm calling BS on that.

Kit. wrote:Doesn't exclusive sale of the collected information defeat the point of sharing it between cars?
Not all the information is useful to cars. The useful-to-cars information is shared, the useful-to-marketers information is sold to the highest bidder.

And it's not just marketers; that's the canary. This is how our world gets redlined.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:26 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Kit. wrote:It would be very nice of you to share your idea how to do that without maintaining a local map, because people who develop autonomous cars for a living keep telling me at weekly team meetings that it's impossible, and maintaining such a map is indeed the hard part.
How do you do it?

I don't.

I build a map using visual clues, memory and (when available, which is almost always) navigational assistance.

ucim wrote:Imagine for a moment that you're visiting Fred, in a different country, and he wants to go somewhere; he knows how to get there but he doesn't know where it is. He can't drive either. "Ok, I'll take you there" because you can drive. Fred rides shotgun and tells you when to turn left, when to turn right... but you are the one whose hands are on the wheel and whose responsibility it is to not modify the car enroute.

I won't do it, because it's unsafe. I am not a professional rally driver, it's unlikely that he is a professional rally co-driver, and the road is definitely not cleared of bystanders.

Besides, I won't trust his choice of the route. It may contain turns that are forbidden for cars.

ucim wrote:Not all the information is useful to cars. The useful-to-cars information is shared,

But that information is useful for cars. It allows them to predict which parking spots might be free.
Last edited by Kit. on Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:27 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Mabuse7
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:07 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Mabuse7 » Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:27 pm UTC

Pabb wrote:I can't help but think about the Sim City 1 solution: no roads, no cars, just railroads and trains everywhere. I think everyone could manage if you could catch some train at least within a 30 minute walking range, at every one hour interval, 24/7, in the most rural of environments in the middle of the night, going up in frequency as you get closer to population centers and busy times of the day.

I would much more readily trust self-driving trains in a controlled environment where actors consist only of self-driving trains.

Of course the cost of of removing roads alone will keep this idea from ever becoming anything else, and there's probably tons of holes I haven't considered.


An all-public-transport urban design is eminently feasible for people, but it makes last-mile freight delivery a thorny problem, how do you get parcels to homes and inventory to shops when there isn't convenient road access to them?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:13 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:I build a map using visual clues, memory and (when available, which is almost always) navigational assistance.
Perhaps we differ on the definition of "map". I am referring to the kind of map used for navigation; a paper version of which used to be carried in a glove compartment. You seem to be referring to the more general "mental map" of one's surroundings that enables one to know where the curb is based on what your eyes tell your brain. The latter is a given (and uninteresting), and doesn't need GPS. The former is the excuse for surveillance, but unnecessary for vehicle control.

Kit. wrote:I won't do it, because it's unsafe. I am not a professional rally driver, it's unlikely that he is a professional rally co-driver, and the road is definitely not cleared of bystanders.

Besides, I won't trust his choice of the route. It may contain turns that are forbidden for cars.
Why would you need to be a professional rally driver? Your job is to not hit things. I suppose it's also to not do illegal things; for this purpose we can consider "illegal" the things that visible signs prohibit. You are permitted to look out the window and use your eyes to avoid hitting people. You are permitted to deviate from the suggested route as needed for safety reasons. If he tells you to turn right, and there is a building there, you are not required to turn right. In fact, it's your job to recognize that turning right at that point is a Bad Idea. You could, for example, continue straight until the next safe opportunity to turn right.

It's not your job to not get lost - that's Fred's job. It's not Fred's job to not hit things - that's your job.

Kit. wrote:But that information is useful for cars. It allows them to predict which parking spots might be free.
A car doesn't have to predict which spots might be free. It can see the spots that are free. For an extra fee, you might purchase parking-spot-prediction services. For a higher fee, you might purchase a prediction of who is likely to be occupying a spot... and what gay bar they are visiting.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:18 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:I'm one of the worst murderers in the world:

Kill count: 0
Hey, at least you tried, right?


Kit. wrote:I won't do it, because it's unsafe. I am not a professional rally driver, it's unlikely that he is a professional rally co-driver, and the road is definitely not cleared of bystanders.

Besides, I won't trust his choice of the route. It may contain turns that are forbidden for cars.
I think there is a disconnect between the sense of mapping the immediately visible environment, and mapping in the larger scale of a traditional map.

I'm in that situation all the time. I well know the 10 minute route from home to work and the shops, and the 4 hour drive to the cottage.
But anywhere else in town, I've got no mental map for.
When someone else is in the car they can give directions, and it all goes much smoother and I don't come back from downtown via a completely different city (sad but true story).

A driver can take direction without being micromanaged! (Well, most I hope. There's always the four-sigma idiots that drive into a lake or through an airport and make the news.)
In San Francisco, when the satnav told me to make a right, and then take the next left (across three lanes of solid cars? Ha!), I simply made the right, and then did three more right turns.
I can trust that the navigator (silicon or carbon) knows what direction the destination is in without swerving all over the place as they talk.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:24 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Kit. wrote:I build a map using visual clues, memory and (when available, which is almost always) navigational assistance.
Perhaps we differ on the definition of "map". I am referring to the kind of map used for navigation; a paper version of which used to be carried in a glove compartment. You seem to be referring to the more general "mental map" of one's surroundings that enables one to know where the curb is based on what your eyes tell your brain.

"What your eyes tell your brain" alone is not enough to drive safely with the speed of traffic.

Besides, that brain is not given for granted. You still need to train it to work with whatever you feed it with the "eyes", and you won't be doing it straight on the road. And the longer you train it, the more data you use, the safer it can be made.

ucim wrote:The latter is a given (and uninteresting), and doesn't need GPS. The former is the excuse for surveillance, but unnecessary for vehicle control.

Actually, the latter is the most interesting part and is the excuse for surveillance.

ucim wrote:
Kit. wrote:I won't do it, because it's unsafe. I am not a professional rally driver, it's unlikely that he is a professional rally co-driver, and the road is definitely not cleared of bystanders.

Besides, I won't trust his choice of the route. It may contain turns that are forbidden for cars.
Why would you need to be a professional rally driver? Your job is to not hit things.

To drive with the speed of traffic and not several times slower. My job is also to make sure that things don't hit me.

ucim wrote:
Kit. wrote:But that information is useful for cars. It allows them to predict which parking spots might be free.
A car doesn't have to predict which spots might be free.

A car doesn't have to exist. It's just nice to have.

(Oh, and a human doesn't have to exist as well)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:27 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:"What your eyes tell your brain" alone is not enough to drive safely with the speed of traffic.
I've done it for years. Snow, rain, night, dirt roads, even diagonally across a parking lot. No map, no GPS, just eyes, a gas pedal, a steering wheel, and a brake.

Kids: don't try this at home.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:03 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Kit. wrote:"What your eyes tell your brain" alone is not enough to drive safely with the speed of traffic.
I've done it for years. Snow, rain, night, dirt roads, even diagonally across a parking lot. No map, no GPS, just eyes, a gas pedal, a steering wheel, and a brake.

What percentage of your driving happened on roads you were driving for the first time ever - without a map or of a knowledge of directions beforehand?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:16 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:What percentage of your driving happened on roads you were driving for the first time ever - without a map or of a knowledge of directions beforehand?
I don't have a number for you, but it's definitely nonzero. I've been known to just get in the car and go.... second star to the right and onward 'till morning. Ok, not literally 'till morning, but enough to know that I do not need a map or GPS to avoid hitting things. I've also driven in several foreign countries without a map... including Italy and the Dominican Republic.

I have gotten lost sometimes. But that's a navigation issue, not an obstacle avoidance issue. Do you not see the difference?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Old Bruce » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:25 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:
HES wrote:
Wee Red Bird wrote:Hand written signs
Those shouldn't be a thing. I'd be curious to see an example.


I'll have to get a photograph of one. The one I saw recently was a pre-made sign with a blank space for a name. Eg "FOR ACCESS TO _______ FOLLOW DIVERSIONS" A sign that they can easily stick a name on to without having to get one made up in advance.
But the apprentice forgot to take the box of sticky letters with them so all they have is a black marker pen.
I have seen fully hand written signs. Will have to keep the camera ready.

But even official signs can have mistakes...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/54358 ... ad-One-Job

Please only do that if you are a passenger [serious-and-concerned-for-everyone's-safe-commute-face emoticon]


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests