Self-driving vehicles could struggle to eliminate most crashes

[soundman98]

that's like trying to explain web addresses to your grandma. BUT IT STARTS WITH AOL.COM!!!

i've tried unsuccessfully for over 3 years now to convince one of my friends that his last car was terrible in the snow, not because the car itself was terrible, but because he had terrible tires on it.. many people still don't understand cars need oil changes...

[WolfpackS2k]

We can't teach people how to driver properly in America because then it'll be more difficult for some people to be mobile, and that will be viewed as persecuting low income people. So instead the government mandates billions and billions in changes every year.

I think it's lunacy, but I think most people agree this is exactly how it would play out. USA #1...

Personally I think if someone can't figure out how to drive properly then there are some serious issues in play with the individual in question.

[Irace86.2.0]

There is a difference between knowing how to drive and using that knowledge. For instance, I think alcoholics that drive while intoxicated know they shouldn't be driving, and I'm sure people eating a Whopper, while talking on their cellphone know that distracted driving isn't the best way to drive, and I'm sure people know not to speed or recklessly drive, and they know not to fall asleep at the wheel, and they would like to not have a seizure or stroke while driving, and I'm sure people didn't intend to have that spider fall on their face, and I bet that truck driver intended to change the brakes of his semi last stop, and I'm almost positive that senior citizen would have checked her blind spot before changing lanes if she didn't have a kyphotic spine that is in the shape of question mark. I could go on and on.


The neural learning for Tesla's autonomous driving should follow a S curve, where there is a huge and rapid increase in the development of the net followed by a leveling off. The problem is how long it will take to get to 99% then 99.9% then 99.99%, etc. Eventually there will be a crossover point where the risk of harm is much greater to drive without self-driving enabled, and the payout for a claim if it fails will be rare enough to justify the problem like how it is with manufacture recalls right now. My thoughts are that the rate of neural development will put level 5 autonomous driving available within the next year or two and that it will take a year or two for enough data to come in to support mass adoption just like ABS, backup cameras, seat belts, etc.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Personally I think if someone can't figure out how to drive properly then there are some serious issues in play with the individual in question.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

There is a difference between knowing how to drive and using that knowledge..........

Many? most? people are very good at deluding themselves. "I can talk on the phone while driving because I've done it before and I haven't crashed."

Rationality can be difficult to define for a person. Rationality is relative.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

....The neural learning for Tesla's autonomous driving should follow a S curve, where there is a huge and rapid increase in the development of the net followed by a leveling off. The problem is how long it will take to get to 99% then 99.9% then 99.99%, etc. Eventually there will be a crossover point where the risk of harm is much greater to drive without self-driving enabled, and the payout for a claim if it fails will be rare enough to justify the problem like how it is with manufacture recalls right now. My thoughts are that the rate of neural development will put level 5 autonomous driving available within the next year or two and that it will take a year or two for enough data to come in to support mass adoption just like ABS, backup cameras, seat belts, etc.

you're forgetting one aspect though. liability. as long as the person in the drivers seat is currently liable at the current autonomy level, that means the auto maker isn't. there's also the 'old-car' liability, where worn parts start to contribute negatively to the vehicles reliability, despite not exactly failing-- like ford's sync system...

what incentive do the auto makers have to take on indefinite-liability of a level 5 system, when the current level 4 systems shirk all of those liabilities onto the vehicle owner?

also, if the auto makers do decide to proceed with level 5 full autonomy, and it makes them fully liable for the entire systems functionality, what benefit do they have to allow independent vehicle ownership anymore? if they own the cars and only rent them out, they can better control vehicle age, maintenance, and the overall user experience.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by soundman98

you're forgetting one aspect though. liability. as long as the person in the drivers seat is currently liable at the current autonomy level, that means the auto maker isn't. there's also the 'old-car' liability, where worn parts start to contribute negatively to the vehicles reliability, despite not exactly failing-- like ford's sync system...

what incentive do the auto makers have to take on indefinite-liability of a level 5 system, when the current level 4 systems shirk all of those liabilities onto the vehicle owner?

also, if the auto makers do decide to proceed with level 5 full autonomy, and it makes them fully liable for the entire systems functionality, what benefit do they have to allow independent vehicle ownership anymore? if they own the cars and only rent them out, they can better control vehicle age, maintenance, and the overall user experience.

Incentive = Money. "Well Harry is doing it, and I definitely want a piece of that pie". Also the fact that so many people are distracted is evidence that they want to pay more attention to everything else but operating the vehicle, so a vehicle that lets them do that is seen as more valuable, and therefore automakers can charge more.

Most people already don't want to own a car anyway...

[StraightOuttaCanadaEh]

Last time I listened to Musk talking about it, it did not seem promising at all. Maybe on some dedicated highways with good lane markings. He said what the the computer has problems with is telling apart objects. Technically our universe is a soup of particles and our brain has been designed to separate objects for whatever evolutionary reason. So they can get the AI to 95% or 99%, but that last 1-5% is incredibly difficult and what they’re currently stuck on. I think it will take a complete understanding of the brain before we’re able to design that kind of AI and we’re not even totally sure how that works.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanadaEh

I think it will take a complete understanding of the brain before we’re able to design that kind of AI and we’re not even totally sure how that works.

"Pareidolia is the tendency for incorrect perception of a stimulus as an object, pattern or meaning known to the observer, such as seeing shapes in clouds, seeing faces in inanimate objects or abstract patterns, or hearing hidden messages in music."
From Wikipedia.


"Inattentional blindness or perceptual blindness (rarely called inattentive blindness) occurs when an individual fails to perceive an unexpected stimulus in plain sight, purely as a result of a lack of attention rather than any vision defects or deficits. When it becomes impossible to attend to all the stimuli in a given situation, a temporary “blindness” effect can occur, as individuals fail to see unexpected but often salient objects or stimuli."
Wikipedia


I'm suggesting understanding how the brain works won't be able to fix its shortcomings.

[NWFRS]

Witnessed a really weird case of road rage today. Saw a middle-aged guy driving a POS Chevy Cobalt brake-checking people on the freeway, tailgating, and alternating between 50 and 90 in the fast lane. Will self-driving cars cut-down on road-rage? Or will people just start shooting at each other now that both hands are free?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

you're forgetting one aspect though. liability. as long as the person in the drivers seat is currently liable at the current autonomy level, that means the auto maker isn't. there's also the 'old-car' liability, where worn parts start to contribute negatively to the vehicles reliability, despite not exactly failing-- like ford's sync system...

what incentive do the auto makers have to take on indefinite-liability of a level 5 system, when the current level 4 systems shirk all of those liabilities onto the vehicle owner?

also, if the auto makers do decide to proceed with level 5 full autonomy, and it makes them fully liable for the entire systems functionality, what benefit do they have to allow independent vehicle ownership anymore? if they own the cars and only rent them out, they can better control vehicle age, maintenance, and the overall user experience.

Manufactures will produce level 5 autonomy to have a feature their competitors don't. Given enough demand, that will cause others to compete. Once data shows that it is so much safer to have it than not having it then it will be mandated by governments just like ABS, seatbelts, etc.

Manufactures will likely be liable for a faulty system if that can be demonstrated to be the case just like a faulty brake system that failed or an airbag that didn't deploy--no different. Maybe the government will mandate a black box to be included eventually, so they don't have to rely on the manufactures. Who knows?

They could decide to rent them out. That's certainly an option, and if that is most profitable then that is what they would likely do. I think there will always be a market for those that want to own, personalize and maintain their own vehicle how they want it, keeping it as clean and smelling how they want it, and keeping the items always in it that they want. Where there is demand there will be a supply.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanadaEh

Last time I listened to Musk talking about it, it did not seem promising at all. Maybe on some dedicated highways with good lane markings. He said what the the computer has problems with is telling apart objects. Technically our universe is a soup of particles and our brain has been designed to separate objects for whatever evolutionary reason. So they can get the AI to 95% or 99%, but that last 1-5% is incredibly difficult and what they’re currently stuck on. I think it will take a complete understanding of the brain before we’re able to design that kind of AI and we’re not even totally sure how that works.

I know it may be hard to believe but Musk is the small fish in the autonomous driving development pond. He is the most vocal but still a very small player.
The systems do not need to work as the human brain.
There are already hundreds of completely autonomous busses running around Europe with zero issues. The big resistance is in North America since it is our god given right to kill people with our cars.

[Captain Snooze]

I go for a drive.

It is self driving car.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Many? most? people are very good at deluding themselves. "I can talk on the phone while driving because I've done it before and I haven't crashed."

Rationality can be difficult to define for a person. Rationality is relative.

Very true. And the more safety features added to a car the more reckless drivers feel they can be. Both in being distracted (my autobraking feature will safe me) and in making ill advised maneuvers (I can swerve lanes in the rain, my stability control will save me!).

Tank mentality really.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Most people already don't want to own a car anyway...

I have seen nothing that proves this. In certain urban areas, perhaps, but that doesn't qualify as "most" as in over 50%.