Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 02 2021, @07:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the rtfm dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Motor Trend has seen fit to publish this "News Flash", https://www.motortrend.com/news/commentary-there-are-no-self-driving-cars-on-sale-today/ with the subheading,

You don't own an autonomous vehicle, no matter what the marketing implies

While this is probably not news to SoylentNews readers, Motor Trend has seen more than their share of people that don't get it. The first photo is a wrecked and burned Model S.

What exists today is a collection of technologies called Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), which can handle basic driving tasks for short periods of time in specific, ideal conditions. ADAS must be monitored at all times, and the car's driver must be alert, undistracted, and prepared to take control at any moment. The best ADAS available today allow drivers to take their hands off the wheel but not their eyes off the road.

These systems fall under the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) classification system as SAE Level 2. That's level two out of five. What you think of as real self-driving or autonomous driving, where a car pilots itself anywhere at any time in any conditions, is Level 5. Sorry, but we're a long, long way from Level 5.

The SAE Level 0-5 chart is included.

What about Level 3? Glad you asked. Many automakers consider it to be so dangerous, they plan to skip it entirely. Level 3 means a car can drive itself completely in good conditions, but the driver still has to pay attention and be ready to take over at any time. Problem is, study after study shows humans are absolutely terrible at this kind of multitasking and refocusing.

In a matter of minutes, people become complacent and overconfident in the computer. Their minds wander. They daydream, check their phone, play with the radio, dig through a bag or bin, fall asleep, or do any number of things other than sit and stare at the road, ready to resume driving themselves. Worse, those studies also show human reaction times become dangerously long when the car stops driving itself and tells them to take command. We need much longer than normal to process what the car tells us, read the environment, read the situation, and react. That kind of delay is almost a guaranteed disaster, and it's potentially fatal.

Your submitting AC has been saying the same thing about SAE Level 3 since I first heard it existed. I might accept a Level 3 car if the hand-off time was guaranteed/proven to be a minute or more. This might be closer to a Level 4 car that included complete weather data and, for example, handed-off a minute before the car drove into a fog bank.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @07:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @07:49AM (#1162159)

    The first "self driving" car was tested in the 80s. There's been progress since then, especially because the computers are much faster and you can run some AI in the car.

    The problems come in several varieties:
      - the real world doesn't agree with the cached version (maps)
      - the equipment is impaired for some reason (e.g. heavy rain)
      - the AI cannot recognize essential input (e.g. is the road covered by ice, or has a pothole)
      - damage liability in case of accident

    I'm not even thinking about trying to certify these systems for safety.

  • (Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Monday August 02 2021, @08:39AM (8 children)

    by MIRV888 (11376) on Monday August 02 2021, @08:39AM (#1162161)

    I'm not disputing the premise, but operationally people are clearly using these self driving modes to nap behind the wheel and let autodrive run the show.
    For the most part it works.
    (Totally anecdotal knowledge)

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Monday August 02 2021, @10:40AM (7 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Monday August 02 2021, @10:40AM (#1162185) Journal

      Chaining a self propelled lawnmower to a stake with the safeties disabled "works" too unless it doesn't...

      • (Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Monday August 02 2021, @12:41PM

        by MIRV888 (11376) on Monday August 02 2021, @12:41PM (#1162200)

        If we are seeing a crash here and there with people asleep driving, then it's happening a whole lot more than you think. That's just human nature. If it worked all those other times, people will do it again and again until it doesn't. I'm not saying it's smart.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Monday August 02 2021, @12:44PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Monday August 02 2021, @12:44PM (#1162202)

        if you tie the lawnmower to a steak, it might be a rare event but when it does work, its well done.

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 1) by bobmorning on Monday August 02 2021, @01:20PM (4 children)

        by bobmorning (6045) on Monday August 02 2021, @01:20PM (#1162207)

        I did this once, the chain got snagged on one of the outer loops and then the mower ran over the chain. Interesting noise and sparks.....

        I used one of the older mowers to attempt this and the wife was away while I played.

        No one got harmed but I was out a few bucks for a new blade.

        • (Score: 1) by Acabatag on Monday August 02 2021, @05:51PM (3 children)

          by Acabatag (2885) on Monday August 02 2021, @05:51PM (#1162333)

          My mowers blade hit an obstruction so hard one time that it sheared the woodruff key that held the flywheel in alignment. It took a lot of troubleshooting before I figured out that was the 'timing' problem. The magneto was completely out of alignment.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @11:52PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @11:52PM (#1162504)

            Ours must have been a newer (or more thoughtful) design? The sudden stop fractured a small zinc casting (inverted T shape) that connected the blade to the engine output shaft--worked like a fuse and was cheap to replace. If buying another mower, I would look for this feature.

            • (Score: 1) by Acabatag on Tuesday August 03 2021, @12:33AM (1 child)

              by Acabatag (2885) on Tuesday August 03 2021, @12:33AM (#1162519)

              The woodruff key was also cheap and easy to replace. Had to borrow a gear puller to get the flywheel off, though.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03 2021, @12:47AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03 2021, @12:47AM (#1162526)

                > The woodruff key was also cheap and easy to replace.

                Yes, one little key was cheaper than the zinc casting, but somewhat harder to diagnose! The little zinc casting was obviously broken once I removed the bent mower blade (the blade looked like a boomerang or end of hockey stick).

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @09:22AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @09:22AM (#1162170)

    But level 2 as well. Level 2 works well enough that you can rely on it often enough that it has most of the same problems as level 3. I don't even like level 1, which encourages sloppiness. Level 0 is ok, it's basically just safer regular driving.

    If the human is responsible for the task, then they have to be involved at all times. Not by rule, but by necessity. Humans don't follow the rules.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 02 2021, @02:38PM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday August 02 2021, @02:38PM (#1162243) Journal

      Here's an article I noticed an hour ago:

      Elon Musk Says He's Close to Solving 'One of the Hardest Technical Problems That's Ever Existed.' Is He Really? [inc.com]

      "I'm extremely confident that level 5 [self-driving cars] or essentially complete autonomy will happen, and I think it will happen very quickly," Tesla CEO Elon Musk remarked [bdtechtalks.com] in a video message to the World Artificial Intelligence Conference on July 9. "I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level 5 autonomy complete this year."

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by KilroySmith on Monday August 02 2021, @05:33PM (1 child)

        by KilroySmith (2113) on Monday August 02 2021, @05:33PM (#1162318)

        Had to take a quick look at the article to find the date. I figured it was an article quoting him from 2016 (https://www.wired.com/2016/10/elon-musk-says-every-new-tesla-can-drive/) saying that it would happen by the end of 2017, or perhaps 2017 saying it would be 2020 (https://electrek.co/2017/12/08/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-timeline/), or perhaps 2019 saying it would be 2020 (https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18510828/tesla-elon-musk-autonomy-day-investor-comments-self-driving-cars-predictions) or 2020 saying it would be 2020 (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53349313) (including the quote ""I'm extremely confident that level five - or essentially complete autonomy - will happen and I think will happen very quickly. I feel like we are very close. I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this year."). But if it's a 2021 article saying that it'll be this year, then it's all good and I'll expect a Christmas update to my Model 3.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @08:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @08:51PM (#1162422)

          It's always "only 5 years away!" so much sooner than fusion.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @05:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @05:41PM (#1162324)

        As usual, Musk's statement is rife with weasel words. Words that make his statement meaningless:

        essentially complete (beta or alpha? Or Musk's personal definition of 'essentially'?)
        I think (What are actual professionals working on and evaluating the software thinking?)
        I remain confident (Confidence is in fact a key characteristic of Confidence Men. AKA Con Men)
        the basic functionality (Basic defined as whatever Musk 'thinks'. We've heard similar before. LIDAR?)

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 02 2021, @09:57AM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 02 2021, @09:57AM (#1162180) Journal

    There Are No Self-Driving Cars on Sale Today

    Thanks God! I can still walk, cycle and drive as safely as before. (large grin)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Acabatag on Monday August 02 2021, @05:56PM

      by Acabatag (2885) on Monday August 02 2021, @05:56PM (#1162337)

      You can walk, cycle and drive safely for a bit longer. Then, overconfident operators of 'self driving' motorized cellphones will emerge and end your experience.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Monday August 02 2021, @11:54AM (7 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 02 2021, @11:54AM (#1162193) Journal

    There Are No Self-Driving Cars on Sale Today

    Other things that don't exist but are talked about as if they did include artificial Intelligence and hoverboards.

    • (Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Monday August 02 2021, @12:43PM (1 child)

      by MIRV888 (11376) on Monday August 02 2021, @12:43PM (#1162201)

      Ninjas, Dwarves, and Eskimos too

      • (Score: 1) by Acabatag on Monday August 02 2021, @05:59PM

        by Acabatag (2885) on Monday August 02 2021, @05:59PM (#1162339)

        The grue under your bed at night will eat you, though, if you dare emerge from the protective walled garden.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday August 02 2021, @01:45PM (4 children)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday August 02 2021, @01:45PM (#1162217) Journal

      Facial recognition, does that exist? For decades, law enforcement has been lusting for that so much they'll latch on to any slightest success in that area as if the tiny advance is the breakthrough they've been hoping for. Then, when they get their mitts on the stuff and actually try it, it fails usually in some spectacularly embarrassing fashion, such as identifying most of Congress as criminals. (Many of them are criminals, of course, just not matches for the criminals in the system's database.)

      It's not just the law. Lot of people want image processing far beyond what we have, and will believe it is more and better than it really is. All the hype and wishful thinking makes it hard to tell how good AI really is at this problem. Evidently not very, or we wouldn't have stories like the recent one about the full moon being mistaken for a yellow traffic light.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @03:57PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @03:57PM (#1162275)

        Facial recognition, does that exist?

        Yes, yes it does.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_China#Skynet [wikipedia.org]

        Skynet is an interlinked system of facial recognition software enabled surveillance cameras currently in operation in 16 Chinese provinces used to help public security organs crack down on crime and identify citizens in public through cross reference with criminal and national identity databases held by the Ministry of Public Security and the National Citizen Identity Information Center (NCIIC). According state media outlet Global Times, the system is fast enough to scan the entire population of the People's Republic of China in under a second and allegedly has an accuracy rate of 99.8%

        You don't have to be 100% accurate, just accurate enough to find the people you are looking for. And the people they may then have interacted with.

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday August 02 2021, @05:43PM (2 children)

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday August 02 2021, @05:43PM (#1162326) Journal

          Think about that accuracy number, 99.8%, for a moment. Sounds very good, doesn't it? But, for finding matches with a database of mugshots of a million, 0.2% is still 2000. For that kind of use, the accuracy needs a few more nines. Maybe 99.999% is good enough.

          • (Score: 2) by helel on Tuesday August 03 2021, @02:58AM (1 child)

            by helel (2949) on Tuesday August 03 2021, @02:58AM (#1162562)

            If you're tailing a suspicious individual manually checking those 2000 mugshots and a heck of a lot faster than manually checking a million.

            • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday August 03 2021, @04:28AM

              by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday August 03 2021, @04:28AM (#1162572) Journal

              Thing is, that leaning on facial recognition in to do all the work is impractical, and also just plain lazy. That million mugshot database is nationwide. Yes, anyone could be anywhere, but before turning things over to facial recognition software, the database should be winnowed by applying information about likely locations, and any other factors that can cut the numbers. Don't hand the inspectors 2000 hits. Keep in mind that could be 2000 per person the system spotted, and the system might be seeing hundreds of people per day.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday August 02 2021, @01:41PM (6 children)

    by Gaaark (41) on Monday August 02 2021, @01:41PM (#1162214) Journal

    I would trust the car (as far as i could throw it) driving itself in a situation such as driving on the 401 highway, straight and fairly level with little traffic, but i would still be watching closely. Other than that, nope.
    Definitely wouldn't trust it in a Don Valley Pkwy rush hour situation: too many people who don't know how to drive there.

    Too much can happen at the drop of a hat: drivers braking suddenly, swerving suddenly, being an asshole suddenly.......

    Nope nope nope.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday August 02 2021, @01:49PM (1 child)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday August 02 2021, @01:49PM (#1162221) Journal

      Could AI drive a train? Let's convert all our automobile roads to railroads!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @04:03PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @04:03PM (#1162276)

      Too much can happen at the drop of a hat: drivers braking suddenly, swerving suddenly, being an asshole suddenly.......

      Which is *exactly* the strong point of automation. The consequences of a crash in a stop and go traffic are far less severe than that on a highway, yet, you believe the highway is a safer area for faulty driving automation system to operate.

      The weak points of driving automation are all about unexpected input - construction, road changing surface from paved to gravel to new pavement without markings to 'low bridge ahead' being a truck across the road. They are not 'another car on the road doing weird stuff' - that is actually very very expected, as long as they are recognized as another vehicle of course!

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday August 02 2021, @05:39PM (2 children)

        by Gaaark (41) on Monday August 02 2021, @05:39PM (#1162322) Journal

        you believe the highway is a safer area for faulty driving automation system to operate

        Hmmm... well, what i ACTUALLY said was "I would trust the car (as far as i could throw it) driving itself in a situation such as driving on the 401 highway, straight and fairly level with little traffic, but i would still be watching closely"

        As in, straight, mostly unoccupied roadway. If there is construction, surface changes, etc, that goes into a completely different category. Again, i would trust the car as far as i could throw it: i'm strong, but not THAT strong.

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03 2021, @01:20PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03 2021, @01:20PM (#1162652)

          If there was a person standing on the highway with their hand out the car would run them over. They see non-moving data as sensor noise and ignore it. Sure in perfect conditions it'll drive fine, but perfect conditions don't exist for long and the switch from perfect to non-perfect can be instant, far faster than you'll notice. Remember when taking control, you're going to hesitate first to see if the car reacts. That's assuming you even see the threat. There's a reason the Desert Bus video game wasn't a best seller.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 03 2021, @05:09PM

            by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday August 03 2021, @05:09PM (#1162752) Journal

            Well gee! And an asteroid might hit the earth too, and joggle the highway a little and throw me into a ditch, too! Let's get every end of days scenario we can to prove Gaaark wrong about something, lets.

            Again, "I would trust the car (as far as i could throw it)", but go on.... please, you're doing so well at coming up with things an alert driver without an AI car couldn't avoid either.

            Sheeeeeesh.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by legont on Monday August 02 2021, @02:16PM (1 child)

    by legont (4179) on Monday August 02 2021, @02:16PM (#1162234)

    What about Level 3? Glad you asked. Many automakers consider it to be so dangerous, they plan to skip it entirely. Level 3 means a car can drive itself completely in good conditions, but the driver still has to pay attention and be ready to take over at any time.

    Fear not - we have Musk to take this chance.

    There are folks out there - and I personally know one - who have not driven their Teslas for years. Nevertheless if the thing hits a bad turn it gives up right in the middle of a slide into a ditch meaning you have fraction of a second to take over the control. They like it anyway and even brag about it. I guess certain people like to play with danger

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 02 2021, @03:22PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 02 2021, @03:22PM (#1162261) Journal

      I guess certain people like to play with danger

      I think it's more a case of not understanding the danger. It's like teenagers in love - they can only see the positives in the other person, and can't see even the most obvious negatives. America, and the world, is in love with the idea of autonomous vehicles.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @04:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02 2021, @04:06PM (#1162278)

    Conspicuously glossed over in TFA is what the leading self driving car companies have said about this. What they have said is: Level 5 is both unattainable and unnecessary. Level 4 is complete safety and complete autonomy driving in some conditions. If those conditions are not available, the vehicle doesn't drive. This is similar to safe human drivers. Safe human drivers won't drive in a blizzard, or a thunderstorm. They stay home or pull over. The idea that self driving is "not ready" until it can drive in blizzards and thunderstorms is BS.

    So, the goal of these companies is to get to complete safety and complete autonomy in enough conditions to be economically useful. Then they continue to push the boundaries on what conditions they can meet their safety and autonomy goals in. The envelope of allowed driving conditions will slowly expand over time.

  • (Score: 2) by DBCubix on Monday August 02 2021, @05:12PM

    by DBCubix (553) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 02 2021, @05:12PM (#1162307)
    This article ignores Waymo's self-driving trucks that are already testing SAE Level 4. Link here [ttnews.com]
(1)