Sure some AI gurus will claim that humans can detect this objects only with 2 eyes but they forget to mention that behind those 2 eyes is a brain an actual intelligence that is aware of the world and it's place in the world. So if you can't create an actual intelligence then at least put the effort in feeding correct data into your AI and remove the line of code "if static object ignore because too hard to detect if is a truck or a shadow/paper bag/sign"
A self driving system needs to have a 3d understanding of it's environment. It's not acceptable to crash into paintings by Wile E. Coyote.
Tesla should also be prohibited from pushing updates. When the software is updated, the code should be tested for at least X thousand miles and X months before a new version may be pushed. Letting an authority do the pushing avoids the temptation of manufacturers to push updates prematurely. It also solves the problem of unexpected changes for the user at random times.
If safety issues are detected, the automobile (or at least the autopilot) should be disabled until the code has been fixed and fully tested.
What systems are you referring to? Lidar and radar systems can't reliably detect stationary objects as hazards, because most of the world is stationary and consequently gets filtered out.
The lidar/radar detects the objects the AI should label them and decide, if it can't do it then throw more video cards at it and more training or find some competent people that could use more deterministic code to reduce the complexity before the AI attempts to run.
https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/
How a code that decides what to ignore or not is a sensor issue? Sensors tell you that there is something in front, sure maybe is a sudden thing and there is no velocity/acceleration vector for a few moments but the object is detected ...the software DECIDES what to ignore.
The example where a car changes slane and the code ignores any static object in front of that car seems a clear case of a crash waiting to happen, the car in front might change the lane to avoid something. (and the fact that some other tech that is honestly labeled lane assist has this issue does not excuse a self claimed autopilot to have same flaws."
Let me summarize and let me know where I am wrong:
"Because the software is bad and it triggers too many false positives the coders added a "clever" hack , we ignore most static objects."
I guess "Sensor Module" would be a more accurate description.
Most automotive systems are designed as a series of modules that function independently but jointly form a system. They either broadcast or consume messages over the CAN BUS.
The Volvo V60 for example has a Forward Sensor Module, the radar, which outputs a handful parameters like Primary Target Range, Voltage, and Automatic Alignment Offset. It's the responsibility of other body modules to consume that data. The Closing Velocity Module might then broadcast Acceleration related messages which intern would be picked up by the Adaptive Cruise Control Module. Or it might broadcast Collision Warning Messages which the Stereo Module reads and responds by blaring a warning noise out the speakers and also the Brake Control Module receives and applies the brakes.
Though the Google car seems to have strong enough hardware to keep track of many vehicles and objects at a big enough distance to not be surprised if something appears or disappears for a frame.
Not sure what people want for a sensor, to detect and label the objects for you? or calculate velocities and predict the future? That seems to be the software developers job but you might need competent people and not throwing big data into a black box and retrain until it mostly works.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the 12 incidents and the Tesla Models involved. Were the incidents involving radar/vision blended, or vision only vehicles or both?
If the incidents only involved older vehicles that were radar equipped, that would be good PR for the vision only system. If the incidents were in vision only systems, it would be bad. I suspect it'll probably be a little of both.
Most systems are self contained modules with low power micro-controllers that can emit basic warning and alert data onto the CAN BUS. Tesla's is actually taking the input from it's sensors and attempting to do more in-depth analysis and actually produce a 3D space.
The fact that they're still suffering from the same problem as other manufacturers shouldn't be an admonishment of their technology or attempts unless or until it's proven that their approach is fundamentally worse.
If their approach fundamentally means they decided to work around mapping their surroundings in 3D correctly, as the GP suggested, there is a strong reason to admonish.
A autonomous driving system which can't detect stationary obstacles is not an autonomous driving system: It's a murder machine.
If they can't do this, they shouldn't operate, full stop.
There's no reason to kill autonomous driving just because gen 1 - 50 isn't perfect but is an improvement on current driving methodology.
Giving a one-line sentence of what happened disregards other variables such as, lighting conditions, where the stationary object was (Over a hill, round a sharp bend, etc.), how much stopping distance was there. A lot of Tesla hate is purposefully done from EV haters & Musk haters. No one can argue that there isn't an establishment who wants to tear down and prevent Tesla & Musk from succeeding. Teslas will catch on fire (like other cars do), Teslas will crash (like other cars do), Auto-pilot will fail (while also being overall an improvement on driving safety).
We can't assume the stationary object was 300 feet away on a straightaway in a perfect visibility conditions, we have to judge whether a human would've performed worse and whether the same cases are occurring over and over. 12 crashes over a few months is a pretty tiny fraction when there are probably more than 12 humans crashing into stationary objects every hour.
>> The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now so we should keep it and accept that crashes will occur >>
As that '1 life' saved may be countered by a number of lives lost due to the system that might otherwise have survived.
This argument ignores the reality of driving: by being a competent, attentive, careful driver you can avoid many classes of accident. Crashes are all about fault, and as a safe driver you can avoid most at-fault accidents. You get to avoid all the self-inflicted damage of drunk/incapacitated driving, unsafe driving for weather conditions, extreme speeding / reckless driving, etc. You still have to deal with the externalities of those, but some fraction of the time you can notice and anticipate these people on the road and stay away. Not always of course, so that still leaves some number of deaths per mile, but I'd bet that threshold is way lower than the "save one life" bar. So if you're a good driver, autonomous cars at the "current death rate" safety bar would make you less safe.
What you get by ignoring this and using the current death rate as a bar is a "transfer of deaths": you take all the deaths that were the fault of the driver (driver dies due to being drunk/high, very reckless driving, etc) and transfer them to random innocent people who were not at fault.
It’s funny you use the word reality since this is completely at odds with driving in America. You’re comparing an idealized world of competent drivers to the real world where there are basically no barriers to getting a license and everyone is on their phone behind the wheel. Unless you advocate for stricter licensing and more police enforcement against inattentive driving with equal vigor, this line of reasoning doesn’t hold.
So I take it you would be fine with the nightmare version of Apple's phone scanner, continuously scanning your devices for thoughtcrime? After all, "If it saves just one child..."
Any time I hear emotional appeals that ignore the cost side of the equation, I look for a financial motive.
The problem with the Apple system is significant downsides that are completely separate from CSAM.
This is not true at all and we have much higher standards than this. This is like saying if a vaccine cures Covid but manages to kill people at a rate slightly less than Covid, we should embrace it.
Are you saying it doesn't matter how often it happens? I'd be a lot more worried about things if something happens always compared to it happening in some cases. Sure, stationary objects should be driven into, I agree. But if this only happens 1 time over the course of 10 years, I'd be a lot more lenient than if it happens once per week, no matter if the reason is "good or bad" (not sure what that means?)
You claim that you have some super duper AI but it can't detect a truck or a wall from a shadow or bag , then your AI is stupid and buy some better sensors and improve your AI.
Well you don't ask for much
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-s...
(thanks for the link correction)
It doesn't really matter. They're stationary objects; there's absolutely no reason, good or bad, for the algorithm to determine that the correct trajectory change is into the stationary object.
Humans crash into stationary objects because they're lacking attention almost 100% of the time, whether it's because they're half asleep, drunk, texting, or distracted by just about anything else. Autopilot shouldn't have this issue, so there's no reason for it to fail to recognize the obstacles unless it's been poorly trained, and there's absolutely no reason for it to recognize an obstacle as a valid path or destination.