Re:Mass layoffs reported after Starsky Robotics fails to fin...
by nathanaldensr on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @10:26AM
(#22423752)
Ah yes, the mythical "AI" that has yet to be invented.
Let's just sprinkle in some AI and it'll work!
Re:Mass layoffs reported after Starsky Robotics fails to fin...
by derefr on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @11:29AM
(#22424450)
The exact cases where human reaction times fail are already taken care of by local subsumptive AI† in cars. For example, collision avoidance is “AI”; lane-keeping and adaptive cruise-control are “AI”; etc. For that matter, an automatic transmission is “AI” in the sense of abstracting away a clutch and gears under a prediction of when you’d want them used.
† ...which doesn’t actually imply anything to do with Machine Learning. Your computer downclocking when it overheats rather than catching on fire, is an example of “subsumptive-architecture artificial intelligence”, even though it’s a hand-coded algorithm doing the subsumption. The “artificial intelligence” in this case refers to the emergent property of the layered subsumptive processes, not to the processes themselves.
Re:Mass layoffs reported after Starsky Robotics fails to fin...
by ddispaltro on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @12:16PM
(#22424986)
Don't forget anti-lock brakes.
Some made-up numbers to explain my point: Consider a situation where the remote operator will make the right response 99.9% of the time, failing 0.1%, and the AI is 20 times worse, making an error 2% of the time. The actual error rate will be (0.1% * connection reliability) + (2% * (1 - connection reliability)). For 3-nines reliability, which is pretty poor, the error rate will be about 0.102%. For 4-nines it will be 0.1002%.
Those sorts of figures would effectively pay for themselves in terms of safety, once you factor in the benefits for monitoring and work conditions for a desk-operator vs a physically present driver, and they don't require either a particularly reliable connection or a particularly good backup AI.