Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by jandrese on Thursday May 24, 2018 @12:24PM
(#17145586)
Aggressive random braking is also a safety issue.
Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by jsight on Thursday May 24, 2018 @12:57PM
(#17145956)
Yep, this is the thing that worries me the most on some of these systems right now. They are going to get rear-ended a lot for the next few years, IMO.
Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by GFischer on Thursday May 24, 2018 @02:01PM
(#17146580)
Rear ends have basically no fatality rate though. They do have material costs but if optimizing for no loss of human life it sounds more appealing.
These kind of tradeoffs were things every self-driving car software developer KNEW they were going to have to deal with - the most extreme being the one where the software has to decide who to kill and who to save:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/technolo...
Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by jpindar on Thursday May 24, 2018 @01:33PM
(#17146307)
And rules out use on snowy roads.
Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by sandos on Friday May 25, 2018 @03:25AM
(#17151383)
Why? Brakes works fine on snowy roads. Distances can be adjusted for snowy roads. It happens every winter where it snows a lot. I don't see a problem.
1. Regulators want aggressive breaking but carmakers want smoother driving
2. Manually tuning all the edge cases for cases where the software is uncertain what's happening will lead to fragile monolith black boxes