Trixology
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: elagache on July 01, 2016, 11:36:29 PM
-
Dear WeatherCat IT observers,
I'm sure everyone has heard by now that a Tesla model-S in autopilot mode failed to detect a truck in its path resulting in a fatal accident. This will undoubtedly reverberate for a while, but there is a thoughtful article on the event on the Atlantic website:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/a-tesla-fatality-and-the-future-of-self-driving-cars/489695/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/a-tesla-fatality-and-the-future-of-self-driving-cars/489695/)
I can't put it any other way, I'm appalled that the companies developing this technology believe that they should not be regulated. Every transportation technology that involves the general public is regulated. The only exceptions that I'm aware of are some off-road recreation vehicles and this may change.
I've been griping about the extent that silicon valley types seem out of touch with reality, but I can't imagine they will ever gain the trust of the public if they don't bow down to the same sort of transportation regulation infrastructure that is in place for many decades.
Edouard
-
I'm all in favor of safety, adequate testing, sensible regulations,etc. I'm also a big fan of common sense. No matter how hard you try, you cannot legislate the elimination of stupidity or being responsible for your own actions. These companies that are attempting to find better ways to do things through technology should not be regulated out of existence by those who believe that you cannot over-regulate sufficiently to protect the gene pool from people who should not be out in the public in the first place.
-
Where the driverless technology will really work is when all the cars are equipped as such and can communicate between each other. But then there will still always be the "blue screen of death", the biggest problem with any computer technology. Even OS X, which touted "uncrashable" when it first came out, was subject to numerous freezes and shutdowns. Theirs is the"black screen of death".
-
Government regulation usually comes along after all is said and done, because in a democracy a lot has to be said and done before the Bureaus of Funny Walks can decide how to proceed with new regulations. I'm with Blick, in that I believe that too many people want to blame the tool when they hit their thumb with a hammer, and many of them are elected officials.
I said this before, and I'll probably say it again. Too many people are persistently unaware of the dangers they face every day. They wake from their slumber, rush to get dressed and stumble out into the world expecting Civil, Electrical and Mechanical Engineers to protect them in their transport, and building infrastructure, while they drive recklessly, stand directly in front of aging microwave ovens, and roll their eyes at safety officers trying to enforce rules. These people can live for a long time, even in todays dangerous world of 2 ton vehicles in close proximity with multiple instances of 40 tons of freight traveling at 75 mph. But just because they can't safely operate a 3 wheeled ATV, doesn't mean legislators should take away all 3 wheeled ATV from the public. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Engineers have to anticipate every possible scenario to make a machine foolproof, and that is impossible, especially when it comes to transportation vehicles. The streets and highways evolved from wilderness trails to accommodate wheeled transport, with a different set of rules legislatively formed in each state. Topography and land ownership often create unique situations where design compromises are made. In the early stages of autonomous vehicle development, anyone who expects to sit in the backseat while the car does it all is going to become part of the statistics of the history of the industry. And, even if you're in the front seat, if you abdicate your responsibility entirely to a computer, you may as well get in the backseat, kiss your rosary and say a little prayer of hello to your maker.
[cheers1]
-
Dear Blick, TechnoMonkey, Herb, and WeatherCat technology observers,
I'm all in favor of safety, adequate testing, sensible regulations,etc. I'm also a big fan of common sense.
Point well taken, but highway safety has been a realm where the government has been working for many years and therefore they have some of the best experts to be found. Also, there is some academic research that is relevant. This is obviously a hard problem and I fear this is another example where geek overconfidence is compromising public safety for the sake of profits to be made with a proprietary technology.
I said this before, and I'll probably say it again. Too many people are persistently unaware of the dangers they face every day.
Unfortunately in this case there appears to be evidence that Tesla really goofed. According to this article on the NPR website:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/07/01/484320101/what-tesla-and-googles-approaches-tell-us-about-autonomous-driving (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/07/01/484320101/what-tesla-and-googles-approaches-tell-us-about-autonomous-driving)
And I quote:
Tesla's Autopilot relies on a combination of "cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors and data automatically steer down the highway, change lanes, and adjust speed in response to traffic," and uses auto braking technology by Israeli company Mobileye.
In a statement posted by TechCrunch, a Mobileye executive said the emergency auto braking was "designed specifically" for rear-end collision avoidance, and not a lateral collision like the fatal case revealed this week.
It is early of course, but it is obvious that Tesla was trying to play catch-up and didn't put in the years of development time that Google has put in. If it turns out that Tesla cobbled together an autopilot system with significant flaws and failed to provide some sort of "nag switch" to force the drivers to pay attention to the road - it sure looks like they are libel for civil and perhaps even criminal prosecution.
Whether this ultimately happens or not, I strongly feel that the silicon valley has a desperate need for generous portion of "humble pie." Competition isn't always the stimulus of excellence. Sometimes it brings out the worse in human behavior. Even the average geek should understand and be cautious when lives are literally at stake.
Edouard
-
I also heard a report on NPR today that says Tesla never states the system is to allow the "driver" to stop monitoring the performance.
There are triple redundancies in most new commercial aircraft autopilots, but there still must be at least one alert pilot in the ******pit. Their primary job is to make sure "George" is doing what "he's" supposed to. That is a "regulation" but it is hard to sleep and respond to ATC, the cabin crew, the company on ACARS, etc. Of course, it still happens that all the crew can fall asleep, it has happened, without any loss of life, fortunately.
How such a "regulation" would be monitored in a single occupant road vehicle is an exercise for the reader... Locomotives have "deadman" switches and even some alarms that must be silenced at fairly short intervals. Video cameras? Eye motion monitoring?
"You simply can't make anything 'fool-proof'. 'Fools' are too imaginative, as well as stupid."
-
Dear X-Air and WeatherCat technology observers,
I also heard a report on NPR today that says Tesla never states the system is to allow the "driver" to stop monitoring the performance.
It will take time for the press to get some concrete details on what exactly Tesla has in the way of "nag switches," but I suspect this could be a weak spot for Tesla. Last year, people posted videos on You-Tube reading the back seat while their car was driving on the road on autopilot. One would hope that Tesla as revised their software to make this impossible, but Tesla is very much between a rock and a hard place. Tesla is the only car that I'm aware of that has this sort of technology. Clearly lots of people are forking over over $100,000 specifically to have self-driving car. If Tesla makes the nagging features too much of a nag, people won't enjoy the feature and will complain about it. I think they must at least give people some freedom so that they can brag - it is that bragging that clearly will drive additional sales.
"You simply can't make anything 'fool-proof'. 'Fools' are too imaginative, as well as stupid."
Whatever the cause, I have to assume that the lawyers are starting to swarm around the Tesla headquarters as well as the family of the victim. Whenever there is "blood in the water," the "land sharks" are never far away! (http://www.canebas.org/WeatherCat/Forum_support_documents/Custom_emoticons/shark-nasty.jpg)
Cheers, Edouard [cheers1]
-
Dear WeatherCat technology observers,
This morning Sam Abuelsamid wrote up a very interesting analysis of the claims made by Tesla with regarding the safety of their self-driving system. It is a thoughtful exploration of the statistics involved and comes up with an unexpected conclusion:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2016/07/05/adding-some-statistical-perspective-to-tesla-autopilot-safety-claims/#affb83a2f8f6 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2016/07/05/adding-some-statistical-perspective-to-tesla-autopilot-safety-claims/#affb83a2f8f6)
It is definitely worth the time needed to take it in.
Cheers, Edouard
-
Forbes, in their true Capitalistic manner, refuses to display anything other than a series of pleas for me to disable my ad blocker. Guess I'll read that article tomorrow in the paper (which I still pay for, of course; they are still the best source for local 'news') or from one of the many sites that will provide their material for free. [rolleyes2] Forbes seems oblivious to the fact that we are now in the "Information Age" and that's mainly what printed matter has been providing for the last 300 years. They apparently think we need still need to pay for the ink and paper they no longer use.
OTOH, if their 'product' is simply opinions, I have no problem paying for it. Just not with ads that someone wants to display to me. Television has tried that model, already. [rolleyes2]
-
Forbes writes more articles about the demise of Apple than the other sites, which I finally had enough of, so I stopped reading their stuff. I'll discover the demise of Apple when my iMac, MacBook, iPad, iPhone and iPod all give up the ghost some day. I've already tried DOS and Windoze and won't be doing those again.
-
Thanks for the heads up, Edouard. Like X-Air the bus driver and Blick the mountain survivor, I don't care for Forbes. Every time I've followed a link to their pages, I've regretted it. I'll watch ABC, CBS & NBC News, and if I don't find out about it there, I'll catch it on CNBC.
[cheers1]
-
I didn't mean to imply Forbes is a poor or undistinguished news/opinion source! To the contrary, as befits my normal attitude, I merely dislike their demanding what and when I use my own machine. I suppose they are just as likely to provide honest, well-researched and thoughtful news and opinions as Faux "News".
Oh, wait... [banghead] [biggrin] [lol]
-
I didn't mean to imply Forbes is a poor or undistinguished news/opinion source! ?
I did.
[cheers1]
-
"Writing for the Forbes contributor network and Nigel Farage LARPing Academy (jokes torn unceremoniously from today?s headlines like a soggy Band-Aid!)..." (The Macalope, MacWorld Columnist, 2 July 2016)
-
Dear X-Air, Blick, Herb, and WeatherCat discriminating news seekers,
So sorry that you guys have had problems accessing Forbes and that you have become biased against them. I run the ad-blocker Privoxy (https://www.privoxy.org/) and I don't have any more problems than a nag for a few seconds before I get access to the site.
I'm afraid it is Caveat Emptor when it comes to all news sources. Still, I try to make sense of what an article is likely to be about based on its title. When it looks to be of interesting content, I'm willing to at least try to see it if the source doesn't appear to be utterly biased. Forbes had another article this morning on the labor market viewed from the process by which Hostess emerged from bankruptcy:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/06/what-saved-hostess-and-twinkies-automation-and-firing-95-of-the-union-workforce/#77f93af06ddb (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/06/what-saved-hostess-and-twinkies-automation-and-firing-95-of-the-union-workforce/#77f93af06ddb)
Obviously this is from a business bias, but the observations are founded in what appears to indisputable facts. It seems clear to me that our present economy is forcing businesses to avoiding hiring as much as possible and eliminate positions whenever possible. This sort of systemic weakness in the employment is doing all sorts of harm at a time when there is a lot of pressure on the west to accept even more people. The two trends look like they are on a collision course and I dearly wish not to experience that crash.
Oh well, . . . . Edouard
-
Sorry if we seemed a bit snobby concerning the Forbes news site, Edouard. In my own experience, the site is much better than it used to be. However, first impressions are the ones that last and I formed my first impressions of Forbes when they were more attuned to milking advertisers in the new click bait economy of the 21st century. The offenses were terrible! It was everything they could throw at you in order to falsely bill advertisers for click or role-over payments. Every page was a minefield of words to avoid, corner triggers and worse than any, the sudden window-shade that covers everything.
Since 1997, I've been on a BBS site called Silicon Investor. (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/home.aspx) I mostly read and post on the Apple Inc. (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=6136) thread, though I don't post near as often as I used to. But, I mention this because it was over that time frame that I formed my opinion of the Forbes site by repeatedly being baited to some interesting article, only to leave, in an irritated huff, with it half read. There are many other offenders of the same ilk, and I give them all as little time as possible. I also tuned my Safari browser to not allow Flash without my expressed written permission. But, I don't run ad blockers. I tried it, but I didn't like it.
Caveat emptor implies a quid pro quo; still? I get what you mean. With some news sources, you get what you pay for, and it's all free except for the rustle of tiny billboards and sometimes in-your-face attention grabbing nuisances where the cute programmers play wiggle games with you. That's when it gets too expensive for me and usually when I decide there is more important reading to be done elsewhere.
[cheers1]