Driverless legislation pushed

Computer questions/solutions, technology news, science topics.

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Verum » Feb 18th, 2018, 11:01 am

dirtybiker wrote:I can see it now, a bunch of empty cars circling the block because a slew of
must have it now movers and shakers need their ride "now" at the ready,
not parked 10 blocks away in some parkade. Assuming that the system works like taxis, and it makes sense that it will since Millennials are already moving away from car ownership, it will mean that it is like having 10x as many taxis on the road, and almost no other vehicles. It's much more efficient (the vehicles are idle for far less time) and there is far less need for parking than today (though there is still a need).
Huge Transport companies computer dispatching empty driverless rigs to go
get loads at a loss.
The computer already figured that a little loss there is made up by the gains of much of the rest of the fleet.
(this already happens, just a driver and wages apply.)So, no actual change except reducing the resources used and becoming more efficient. I don't see a problem here for our capitalist society.

Congestion will be just as bad or worse with empty vehicles driving themselves around after every whim and
whimsy of the humanoids ordering them. There's an app for that !Maybe, but probably not. Especially if we only have automated vehicles on the roads, then the traditional bottlenecks of junctions, lights, etc. can be much more efficient.It's not as if these vehicles will be free or anything, so people will still want to keep journeys to ones worth making

Vehicles making the "decision" to mow down the unwary kid chasing a ball to not risk it's passengers.
or;
People not buying in because the vehicle is programed to sacrifice itself and passenger to save the unwary.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply

CapitalB likes this post.
User avatar
Verum
Übergod
 
Posts: 1532
Likes: 762 posts
Liked in: 1155 posts
Joined: Oct 6th, 2017, 12:31 am

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jlabute » Feb 18th, 2018, 11:59 am

Apparently, only three companies are allowed to test self-driving cars in Canada. They have just begun preliminary testing. BlackBerry, UoW, and Erwin Hymer group. Even then, Ontario has the only self-driving cars being tested. Canada is slow to the game as usual. So driverless legislation for Canada may not necessarily be in a rush for 2021. The article says the vehicles won’t be ready for some time so... maybe next week if an AI advancement suddenly happens?

https://www.callkleinlawyers.com/full-disclosure/self-driving-cars-coming-canada/

Early ICBC comments suggest there wouldn’t be much change in coverage if you were to involve your own driverless vehicle in an accident.
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1735
Likes: 903 posts
Liked in: 1064 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jlabute » Feb 24th, 2018, 1:05 am

CapitalB wrote:Why on earth would I want to buy one? My vehicle sits idle most of the time, what I'm expecting is a more general public transit service made up of driverless vehicles. Vehicle ownership has been dropping among younger people for quite a while now and that trend is likely to continues. I personally will still own a normal vehicle for pleasure driving but for 95% of my transportation purposes I can probably leave my own vehicle parked. Even if I was rich enough to buy a new care I really don't think theres any financial justification for wasting such a huge amount of money on an object that depreciates so quickly and that has less and less purpose in the world we're making.

You are incorrect about level 4 level 3 is the one with a wheel and humans as backup. Level 4 is completely driverless but only functional in specific areas, level 5 would just be general purpose. There are level 4 vehicles in cities, canadian cities even right now. They go pretty slow and only on a set track but its a start.

Uber is probably the back of the driverless pack. Check out Waymo and GM's cars. These ones still have a backup driver taking the wheel every 9000 kilometers or so but its basically just a matter of letting the AI practice driving until its perfect. Also I think having a person not need to touch the wheel for almost two entire oil changes is looking pretty damn good.

Also since you really seemed to want a hard number I think people will be able to buy the first true fully autonomous cars for themselves by 2022. Although I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there was a big breakthrough of some kind that speeds things up. AI research has been destroying prediction lately, hitting milestones that were expected to take another twenty years (Ai beating world GO master was not expected until the 2030's) and has been advancing exponentially since then.

Last point I swear. Your link about people being the biggest problem faced by driverless cars is because at this point nearly all the accidents driverless cars have been in have been caused by other drivers. Thaaaaats not a point against driverless cars thats a point against stupid monkeys driving big machines.


LEVEL 4, still requires a steering wheel since human intervention may still be required, at least according to various descriptions of the levels. LEVEL 5 has no steering wheel.

http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/15724/what-are-these-levels-of-autonomy-anyway

“Level 4: High automation. Self-driving cars will be able to handle most "dynamic driving tasks," to use SAE International's terminology. In other words, a Level 4 car can handle most normal driving tasks on its own, but will still require driver intervention from time to time, during poor weather conditions, for example, or other unusual environments. Level 4 cars will generally do the driving for you, but will still have a steering wheel and pedals for a human driver to take over when needed.”

There is a good documentary on Netflix called AlphaGo. You probably have seen it. It tells a story of the Go AI development that challenged the worlds top player in Korea, Lee Se-Dol. The 5 game exhibition was won by AlphaGo 4 to 1. A funny moment was AlphaGo’s first move in game 1 which took a few minutes. Lee Se-Dol won game 4 because AlphaGo encountered a weird situation it couldnt account for and therefore went off the Deep End on a crazy train. In all the games, AlphaGo made mistakes, lazy decisions, weird decisions, and some good moves. Saying that, in the automotive industry which requires absolute robust reliability and provable outcomes in testing, one can’t say for sure any particular set of complex algorithms such as AlphaGo will behave as expected. The developers mostly wondered about how certain moves were decided without definitively knowing how. Despite this, auto makers will strive to employ this sort of tech and will probably be exhempt from proving its robustness, which may not even be possible.



http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/why-alphago-is-not-ai
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1735
Likes: 903 posts
Liked in: 1064 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby CapitalB » Feb 26th, 2018, 10:36 am

I think different sites are reporting different definitions for the Automated driving levels
On wikipedia they're showing this

SAE Level Name Narrative Definition Execution of Steering and Acceleration/Deceleration Monitoring of Driving Environment Fallback Performance of Dynamic Driving Task System Capability (Driving Modes)
Human driver monitors the driving environment
0 No Automation the full-time performance by the human driver of all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even when enhanced by warning or intervention systems Human driver Human driver Human driver n/a
1 Drive Assistance the driving mode-specific execution by a driver assistance system of either steering or acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task Human driver and system Human driver Human driver Some driving modes
2 Partial Automation the driving mode-specific execution by one or more driver assistance systems of both steering and acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task System Human driver Human driver Some driving modes
Automated driving system monitors the driving environment
3 Conditional Automation the driving mode-specific performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task with the expectation that the human driver will respond appropriately to a request to intervene System System Human driver Some driving modes
4 High Automation the driving mode-specific performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene System System System Many driving modes
5 Full Automation the full-time performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver System System System All driving modes


Which defines level 4 as having no human backup, its all system.


I'm pretty up on the alphago developments, they've actually progressed significantly from where they were then, the system has been learning a wide variety of board and computer games. Alphago is what programmers call a black box ai, since it uses machine learning to figure things out it will be virtually impossible to know how its decisions are made.

Automakers will and probably already are using a variation of this software. I mean its made by google who basically started the self driving car trend, I'm pretty sure Waymo are using black box learning algorithm ai all the way down. So are teslas, you can't really have a human programmed driving machine there are way too many variables to accounts for.
So much of the violent push-back on everything progressive and reformist comes down to: I can see the future, and in this future I am not the centre of the universe and master of all that I survey, therefore this future must be resisted at all costs.
User avatar
CapitalB
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 810
Likes: 368 posts
Liked in: 513 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2017, 12:27 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jlabute » Feb 26th, 2018, 3:15 pm

I suppose we read it different. LEVEL 4 as many sites say require human response under certain conditions and therefore need a steering wheel, and perhaps wiki doesn't explicitly state it, but, that would be the difference between 'high' automation, and 'full' automation. Full automation by definition would not require a steering wheel. High automation needs a steering wheel unless you want your trip to be aborted in certain circumstances. It is conceivable the trip could be aborted indefinitely until a driver takes control.

"Wiki link you provided"

Level 5 (”steering wheel optional”): No human intervention is required. An example would be a robotic taxi. LEVEL 5 is the only steering wheel optional LEVEL.

"Level 4 (”mind off”): As level 3, but no driver attention is ever required for safety, i.e. the driver may safely go to sleep or leave the driver's seat. Self driving is supported only in limited areas (geofenced) or under special circumstances, like traffic jams. Outside of these areas or circumstances, the vehicle must be able to safely abort the trip, i.e. park the car, if the driver does not retake control."
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1735
Likes: 903 posts
Liked in: 1064 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jlabute » Mar 19th, 2018, 12:12 pm

If a human was driving, this would not likely have occurred. There is still a lot of work and testing to go in to the software that drives these cars. Maybe that's what you get for walking outside of a crosswalk area?

Woman killed by self driving vehicle.
https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-221472-5-.htm#221472
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1735
Likes: 903 posts
Liked in: 1064 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby PDT » Mar 19th, 2018, 4:42 pm

There was still a human behind the wheel of this vehicle. I agree that there's still a lot of work to do for driverless vehicles. However, in this case, 2 humans failed to prevent this death as well - the one behind the wheel who could've taken control of the car and the pedestrian who really should be waiting for vehicles to stop before crossing the road.
PDT
Fledgling
 
Posts: 315
Likes: 160 posts
Liked in: 129 posts
Joined: Apr 2nd, 2008, 5:13 pm
Location: Kelowna, BC

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby oldtrucker » Mar 19th, 2018, 5:55 pm

I wonder if it had a radar failure and the brakes were not applied by the computer as a result.
One time I was in the curve at Comstock Rd. southbound on the Coq.with the cruise set at 118 km/hr in the left lane. A car changed lanes in front of me and the radar slammed the brakes on. I was driving a Freightliner with a triaxle load of around 46 tons, and I would have died as well as anyone northbound if the truck flipped.
Relying on braking from a radar/braking system will backfire eventually; perhaps that is what happened to the car that killed the woman in the article. Relying on any automated system with the driver or pilot not being able to over ride what the computers want will be a killer in the future.
Some may view my above politically incorrect opinions as 'harsh' and may even be offended by them. Some think political correctness will be our undoing.
User avatar
oldtrucker
Übergod
 
Posts: 1119
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 556 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2013, 4:19 pm
Location: Proxima Centauri B

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jlabute » Mar 19th, 2018, 6:44 pm

Before an accident occurs, one could have less than a second to decide what to do. I wonder if the autonomous system can relinquish control quick enough without thinking the user is an idiot. Probably have to be awake to apply brakes. The attendant may have been sleeping for all we know. Either way, the autonomous system meant to save lives, took a life all because we need to rush to market to make $$.
49 year old Elaine Herzberg was walking her bike across the street and was hit by the autonomous vehicle at 40mph which did not slow down or stop... all the super-tech AI 100s of sensors blah blah blah didn’t see her at all. It’s possible charges will be coming.
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1735
Likes: 903 posts
Liked in: 1064 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jflem1983 » Mar 20th, 2018, 6:30 am

https://www.castanet.net/news/World/221 ... ot-so-fast


Murdered by an uber on auto pilot. Extra extra. Read all about it.
Now they want to take our guns away . That would be just fine. Take em away from the criminals first . Ill gladly give u mine. "Charlie Daniels"

You have got to stand for something . Or you will fall for anything "Aaron Tippin"

Jlabute likes this post.
User avatar
Jflem1983
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4948
Likes: 11078 posts
Liked in: 2822 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2015, 11:38 am

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jonrox » Mar 21st, 2018, 3:28 pm

One autonomous vehicle kills a pedestrian and people start freaking out. Meanwhile dozens of people in north America were killed yesterday by vehicles with human drivers and nobody batted an eye.

It would be a shame if an incident like this derailed the progress of this technology and we instead decide that more deaths is better than fewer deaths. Autonomous vehicles will save lives - this is not a reason to even hit the pause button on them. Collisions will still happen, but as the technology progresses it will make us safer and safer. To continue with the option of human drivers that will result in more dead bodies when we have better options is unethical.
Jonrox
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3651
Likes: 379 posts
Liked in: 2067 posts
Joined: Apr 14th, 2010, 2:09 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jflem1983 » Mar 22nd, 2018, 7:19 am

Well there is always expert opinion like above.

Or there is this.


https://www.castanet.net/news/World/221 ... r-scrutiny
Now they want to take our guns away . That would be just fine. Take em away from the criminals first . Ill gladly give u mine. "Charlie Daniels"

You have got to stand for something . Or you will fall for anything "Aaron Tippin"

Jlabute likes this post.
User avatar
Jflem1983
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4948
Likes: 11078 posts
Liked in: 2822 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2015, 11:38 am

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jlabute » Mar 22nd, 2018, 10:47 am

Since they are making the analysis public, I am looking forward to their assessment of what happened in the cars brain. Obviously the car saw and categorized the person. Maybe 'AI' has already begun to peg people off.
We don't expect that this will slow down the development of the technology, we are just saying these cars won't be flying off the shelf in a few years. There are a number of things that have to happen to bring LEVEL 5 vehicles to your local dealership... the electronics can't add $20,000 on top of the price, should work in all weather conditions with minimal maintenance, can't be so horribly ugly, the vehicle won't come with one or two engineers, and last but not least; can't kill people and you can prove it won't. Maybe this car had AlphaGo AI tech in it... so the more people it runs over, the better it gets.

Anyone having second thoughts about crossing the road?
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.

Jflem1983 likes this post.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1735
Likes: 903 posts
Liked in: 1064 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jonrox » Mar 22nd, 2018, 9:51 pm

The video of the crash has been released. I’m not sure a human driver would have been able to avoid her either. But the car should have been able to identify her better than a human driver could given it was completely dark and she didn’t show up in the vehicle’s headlights until the very last second (it looks like she was walking with her bike in a completely unlit part of the road).
Jonrox
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3651
Likes: 379 posts
Liked in: 2067 posts
Joined: Apr 14th, 2010, 2:09 pm

Re: Driverless legislation pushed

Postby Jlabute » Mar 22nd, 2018, 11:55 pm

I’m not sure what the relevance of her being lit up by vehicle headlights is, perhaps that may have helped the driver.. LiDAR should have spotted her 200 ft out or more in total darkness, shadows or not, 360 degrees around the vehicle. Radar and or cameras should have sensed her close up when all else fails. The video shows a complete failure of UBERs technology and safety protocols. Perhaps their software just sucks... I trust the sensors more than the software. UBER may release Lidar data soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/22/video-released-of-uber-self-driving-crash-that-killed-woman-in-arizona

Who knows if this may have any bearing on Waymo since UBER and Waymo are in a lawsuit over UBER swiping Lidar IP from google.
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.

spooker likes this post.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1735
Likes: 903 posts
Liked in: 1064 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Computers, Science, Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests