[LINK] Cars, again

[Karl Auer]

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 22:19 +1100, David wrote:
> That won't work because you're asking people

No I'm not. They will do it themselves, in droves, as soon as anything
halfway useful comes on the matrket. As they are already doing with
Tesla.

>  to place the lives of themselves and their families in an opaque
> piece of technology with the vague assurance that, on average, it
> will be good for the accident statistics.

Theywon't do it because of assurances. They will do it because they
want the features. And as for putting their lives in opaque pieces of
technology, everyone does that every day.

> The practical question of implementation only becomes relevant when
> there's agreement about the goal.

No new technology has ever - EVER - followed that path. There will be
no agreement about goals, no agreement about anything. People will get
on with implementing stuff, using thousands of different "benchmarks",
while the law and regulators follow years behind.

>  And the goal needs to be expressed in ethical terms because the
> technology is so opaque and human lives are at stake.

You can express your goals any way you like, but if you can't measure
how close you are to achieving them, it's waffle.

> (1)  The vehicle is to be able to climb a (given) mountainous road
> with no safety fence to mark the edge on a rainy night at a speed of
> at least 'v' kph, and must do so successfully on 100 consecutive
> attempts.  That might test the vehicle's sensors.

So - it has to be WAY better than most human drivers. Uhuh. On a
mountain road atypical of most mountain roads. In particularly
difficult circumstances. That a competent human driver would avoid.

> (2)  The vehicle is to come to a complete stop from a speed of 'x'
> kph in 'y' seconds when an obstruction is suddenly placed 'z' metres
> in its path, and must do so on 100 consecutive attempts.

Again, way better than most human drivers. Though this task is probably
one where the average automaton could be way better than most human
drivers.

> ...that sort of thing.  What else would you expect an expert driver
> to be able to do?

I want a competent, dependable, reliable, law-abiding driver who
concentrates on the task at hand. One who says "why don't we go up that
mountain tomorrow in daylight when the rain has stopped?"

>   We need another use-case to test the vehicle in an environment
> where there are many vehicles doing erratic things at high speed, for
> example in a multiple vehicle accident where a truck suddenly diverts
> into an oncoming line of traffic.  I'm thinking of the accident on
> the Hume Highway a little time ago when a truck did just that.

And how did the humans do?

You want perfection, or at least extreme superiority. But autonomous
vehicles only need to be just a bit [safer, faster, cheaper] than human
drivers to make the world a better place. The "just a bit" will become
"quite a bit" and eventually there will be no rational reason for
humans to drive vehicles any more, except for fun, in isolated
environments with like-minded enthusiasts.

It all starts with "just a bit". And there is no way to measure how big
that bit is, except via a statistical examination of the facts - after
the fact.

Regards, K.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: A52E F6B9 708B 51C4 85E6 1634 0571 ADF9 3C1C 6A3A
Old fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B