Uber Killing
You've probably heard Sunday night an Uber self-driving car with a driver who is supposed to intercede if the car fucks up, killed a pedestrian walking her bike across the road.
They've been telling us the big advantage of self drivers is Lidar which will see in the dark and avoid things people can't. The fortunate thing about these cars is the have full time video rolling inside and out. |
1 Attachment(s)
The only successful self driving car.
|
Robots take an early lead 1-0.
|
Can you blame them, after all the shit Boston Dynamic does to their robots to test them?
|
Can anyone really claim they would have seen that woman, as a human driver? Maybe the camera makes it less clear than it was to normal eyes at the time, but she came out of freaking nowhere.
|
At 3 seconds into the video a driver might have swerved or at least braked. The car, which is supposed to use lidar to see her when the driver can't, hit her at full speed.
|
This the same week Cadillac begins pimping their highway snooze technology.
|
Quote:
And...If Tempe is anything like Tucson, the roads are very dark at night. |
Quote:
I think that video footage is not terribly accurate at showing what a human would see. Much darker. The road is divided with vegetation in the middle, so there were no headlights of oncoming traffic blinding a driver. I think a human would have seen the woman much earlier than it seems in the video. The woman was jaywalking at night in front of a car, but I think I would have seen her based on the phone camera photo. |
Quote:
Assumption is that the item (victim) was not seen. Nonsense. Autonomous vehicles only at stage 2 will see things and still be confused. Too many reasons exist - all are suspect. Darkness should be a least likely suspect. Why did a Telsa in complete daylight run into the side of an 18 wheeler? Vision problems. Pattern recognition defect? Far too much is involved and unknown to make any conclusion. But that too was only a stage 2 system. It also must be supervised by the human who is responsible for a car's actions. Only one conclusion is possible. A 2nd stage system is too experimental. No where near as sophisticated as Google's stage 4 systems that still require human supervision. That means a human supervisor who does not constantly pay attention should be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide. Because he was no less guilty than a driver who was drunk. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. In a stage 2 system, that is clearly a required human supervisor. That guy in the driver's seat is criminally negligent. |
Quote:
|
From the NY Times of 23 Mar 2018:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
They don't see, they detect, in this case patterns.
|
Quote:
Human vision is also only the detecting of case patterns in a limited spectrum. Cars and Superman can even have X-ray vision. Humans cannot. |
Must have been using X-ray vision to see right through her because it didn't brake and hit her at 48 mph. The human saw her when he looked up, granted too late to do anything, but the car didn't see her at all.
|
Quote:
And I just though it was SUVs and excessively high pickup trucks that had so much contempt for bicycles. Silly me. |
Apparently the Uber car, a Volvo, had its own collision avoidance system, and the manufacturer of that system wants everyone to know that it had been turned off.
Probably standard when testing Uber's own systems, but an interesting note. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.