tyrion

Yes, some people write software as a hobby. But most open source software is written by paid professionals.

Maelochs

As far as I know some AV car turned rogue and ran down a cyclist in Tempe, Arizona ... apparently had a swastika carved into its grille and was shouting "Allahu Akbar"----you know, the way AV cars tend to do.

We will never know because the incident has been completely covered up by several major media outlets.

They Say it would have been the first fatality, had it happened ... but we all know that hordes of ravenous AVs have been pillaging and killing across the Southwest. Death toll is in the tens of thousands probably. The AV-controlled media won't ever report it.

I-Like-To-Bike

You must consider yourself quite the wit. BTW, someone died in the story you are laffing about.

robertorolfo

Sorry, but your comments come off as more than a little bit callow. Do you think 33 year old people are "old"? Do you think living with your parents at that age is some sort of stigma? (btw, I didn't and don't, but you can go to Italy sometime and meet plenty of guys that do who will run circles around you in more ways than one)

That particular comment aside, it's pretty clear that you are too eager to believe. Too gullible. I actually agree that there is a trend in modern society to distrust or dislike anyone perceived as smarter, but that isn't the case here at all.

Nobody is saying they understand the code better than the people involved, or the poster in here that works with this stuff in some roundabout way. That's not the claim at all. They are simply saying that publicly sharing some of the code/data that was being used during the few seconds prior to and during impact, would be useful. And you don't think there is anybody out there in the general public that could look at the code and understand what was going on?

(Also, as an aside, people, and especially young people, seem to think developers and programmers are some sort of elite, special category of workers. That they are generally of superior intelligence. This is, of course, nonsense. Anyone who has worked with them can tell you they are just the same as people who use numerous other job titles.)

I-Like-To-Bike

More on how a search for truth on this incident is conducted by investigative professionals, to include releasing information about probable cause in a fatal collision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/after-driverless-uber-hits-and-kills-pedestrian-probe-looks-for-broader-safety-insights/2018/03/20/2fe3af6e-2c5e-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html

Extract (bolding applied by me):
The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent body that does painstaking and precise investigations into everything from bridge collapses to train wrecks and plane crashes, continued to gather information in Arizona on Tuesday, including pulling from electronic data sources stored in the vehicle or sent to Uber.

The safety body said its investigation would examine the operating condition of the SUV, the backup driver’s interactions with it and “opportunities for the vehicle or driver to detect” the pedestrian. On Tuesday, investigators began to examine the Volvo XC90 and the accident site, and viewed video footage of the crash from a dashboard-mounted camera, the NTSB said. Investigators also gathered information on the vehicle technology, the pedestrian and the driver, according to the NTSB.

“The NTSB investigates select highway crashes that can advance knowledge of broad or new safety issues,” the panel said. Spokesman Eric Weiss added that depending on the findings, the investigation could lead to broader recommendations encompassing entities other than Uber.

But it’s still early, Weiss said.

“We would look at the probable cause of this accident, and then if there are any other broader implications, we would look at that as well,” Weiss said.

But while the team is expected to remain in Tempe for the rest of the week, it was not expected to release the probable cause of the crash or other related findings until the investigation is complete.

robertorolfo

First off, I haven't heard anything from an actual investigator. I've only heard a comment from a sheriff, and that same guy has since walked back his comments, explicitly stating that he does not INVESTIGATE traffic accidents as part of his regular duties and responsibilities.

Second, is it so crazy to be skeptical considering the people and the amount of money involved? Have you not been reading the news? These companies are more than happy to deceive the public for the sake of protecting their valuation. You make it sound like we are flat-earthers, or people claiming the moon landings never happened.

And I think doctoring video in a situation like this would be rather complicated, even for a company like Uber. And yes, video of fatal traffic accidents is routinely released for a variety of purposes, and it's hard to argue that this wouldn't be in the public's best interests.

I-Like-To-Bike

More relevant info from the Washington Post article cited above:
“What would prevent those [fatalities] would be not speeding, not drinking, not texting, not being distracted,” said Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina. “The hope is that automated driving, when it is ready, will be able to address many of those causes without introducing significant new sources of crashes.”

Smith also said that pedestrians and bicyclists often get blamed in these cases “because the pedestrians are the dead ones, and they’re not there to defend themselves.”

“Really, any crash with that pedestrian should have been avoidable, unless the circumstances were really strange, meaning: Physics won. If the victim was visible and the path of the victim was reasonably predictable, then she should not have been hit,” Smith said.

Police investigators believe that the woman who was killed, Elaine Herzberg, had been near a median packed with trees and shrubs in the run-up to the crash, and it is unclear what the car or its backup driver might have been able to see before she was hit.

“It’s different when you’re seeing it through your own eyes as opposed to trying to see it through a camera sometimes,” said Tempe police Cmdr. Jeffrey Glover, adding that reconstructions will be done to help answer that question as part of the investigation.

I-Like-To-Bike

An interesting comment from msaby2002 to a NYT article on this incident is relevant to your observation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/t...-fatality.html
msaby2002 Middle of nowhere, more or less 1 day ago Comment:
"One always finds the language of religion in articles about technology: "Researchers believe self-driving cars will ultimately be more safe . . . " Combine that kind of faith with the cult of profit, and you have one heck of an appealing spiritual pathway into the hearts of many Americans brought up on hot air and greed and the notion that one should just keep pushing hard on whatever one wants badly enough, like "success."

But "belief" is a lot safer itself when directed towards the mythology of the past the way it generally is in religion itself. Start attaching it to future predictions with the promise of big bucks for somebody, and anyone who happens to be in the road had best get out of the way or die.

Our language includes an insult for anyone reluctant to leap on every last techno-bandwagon that humps and pumps its way into our fantasies: "Luddite." We need one for the techno-bandwagon-jumpers too, who have already done so much damage to reading and education with their innovations that we may already be too stupid to stop the rest of their destruction.

Maelochs

I am not "laffing" about anything. I am making jokes about many, many incidents in which people died.

Guess what.

Every time you demean someone on this forum, you are demeaning a person who could die at any moment. Everyone you bicker with on these pages (in other words, everyone) is going to die.

Your cheap attempt to to pick up pseudo-moralistic debating points by pretending you are too good to laugh at dead people ... not even a good try. People here know you would say anything to try to win one round of a posting debate.

My mother died just over 13 months ago. I can make jokes about that. Guess what--she's not coming back if I don't joke about it.

And yes, I do amuse myself. Humor is subjective, so I really don't care if anyone else finds me funny.

Have a good day out there on the water, trailing that baited hook behind you as you float along slowly.

InOmaha

I look forward to reading the official government report when it comes out in a year or two.


I'd volunteer to look at the data and programming. Control system logic from sensor input isn't a particularly new concept. I'd have to brush up on it since I haven't done it in a while.


I have no real desire to watch the video. The video is for people to process the event in the way we perceive the world. The passenger in the car likely didn't know what the car hit until he looked in the rear view mirror. The video would show what a person driving the car would see and put the incident into context as if it were a regular car accident. The video is interesting only as a side note as a baseline to how the incident would have looked to a regular human driver. But a person wasn't driving car and the car's software and automated control system "sees" and processes the world differently then a human.

jefnvk

Investigators don't speak, at least not unless it is anonymously (which, if I can't listen to the Sheriff, should I listen to an anonymous source?). PR and the brass talk to press. That is pretty much SOP.

Well, when folks give more credibility to the notion that there is some conspiracy between the Tempe PD and SF Chronicle to bolster Uber's image than there is the chance that someone just stepped in front of a vehicle, folks don't come off as much more believable than flat earthers. Especially so when I look at SF Chronicle's coverage of Uber over the last 15 months and see any number of unattractive headlines: https://www.google.com/search?q=uber...16%2F2018&tbm=

Just a couple found in that search:

Suicide of an Uber engineer: Widow blames job stress
California tells Uber it’s sloppy about ditching drunken drivers
Report: Secret Uber program 'Hell' spied on Lyft drivers
SF to Uber: Provide driver info — it’s the law
Uber hacking cover-up triggers government probes
Uber, Lyft drivers earn abysmal wages, according to disputed report

Can I accept that there is some tiny possibility Uber is actually buying everyone off? Sure, it isn't impossible. Do I think there is any sort of minuscule, remote probability? De nada.

Well, we agree on this

Although, I still contend many (even if not you) would argue that Uber doctored it in some way even if it were released and showed exactly what the sheriff said

Kontact 

Are you suddenly saying that the Tempe police is a reliable source of information? After all:

InOmaha

I'm a little curious as to how they approach legal driving vs human safety. I know that sometimes the safest route for me to take is the illegal route. I've had several occasions that required me to speed up in order to clear an unsafe condition and avoid a collision versus slowing down and getting into an inevitable, though slower, accident.


Training the software specifically for legal driving boundary conditions may unnecessarily limit the full AV capability. Though I could see from a legal aspect that following the letter of the law would limit corporate liability and therefore it would be better to risk a collision even if it costs lives in an effort to shield them from blame.


The AV transition period will be difficult because regular cars will not be able to communicate intention with AV cars (braking, turning, car stopped on a blind corner, etc.). This could theoretically result in situations where the AV is responding to a sudden change or an accident in front of them that requires the software do make a judgement decision. Is it better to run into the stopped car in front at 60 mph or is it better to run the cyclist on the side of the road in and effort to avoid the collision.


I'm almost certain someone somewhere has had this discussion and it may already exist in the software as a hierarchy of logic. The feedback loop for humans is much different then the feedback look for this programming; which may be yearly accident statistics or which lawsuit costs the company less.

Kontact 

This question does seem to come up a bit, but I would be curious to see how often a real or simulated accident does offer a clear "devil's choice" between cyclist and the van full of girl scouts. I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of the time there is a pretty clear cut response that is both attainable and relatively "ethical".

I guess it is going to come down to whether the robot understands that pedestrians and cyclists don't have bumpers and crumple zones.

njkayaker

It's weird.

They are paid to do it but the result doesn't produce income directly.

The AV companies (at the moment) are looking at the effort/cost of writing software as a competitive advantage. (Just like Boeing and Airbus do.)

It doesn't make sense for them to give away the results of that expensive effort to their competitors.

Companies pay people to contribute to open source software because the alternative (proprietary software) is considered too expensive or not a competitive advantage.

InOmaha

The best alternative might be jump the curb and hit a pole. Hopefully the AV doesn't get advanced enough to take self preservation into account.

Siu Blue Wind

Kontact, please leave this thread.

Daniel4

I agree.

Let's put it this way: pedestrians and cyclists have no protection. Occupants of a motor vehicle are protected with seat belts, airbags and the car's structure itself built under strict safety standards ( thanks to Ralph Nader). So why is there a choice which vulnerable road user to sacrifice? Why can't the first choice for a self-driving car be itself? The occupants will survive. It'll only cost money to fix the car or get another one.

tyrion

Indirect money is just as good as direct money. Ask Google or Facebook.

njkayaker

No, it's different.

The open source effort isn't what gives Google or Facebook a competitive advantage. Google and Facebook have a huge amount of proprietary software.

It's a competitive equalizer.

It might save them money but it doesn't really make them money (it's other things that do that).

tyrion

No, it really does make them money. IBM has spent a lot of money supporting Linux, which in turn helps them sell hardware to run Linux and software that runs on top of Linux. Google spends a lot of money on various projects (like Chromium and Android), which indirectly feeds its advertising business.

These are not altruistic ventures, they're doing it to make money.

Maelochs

Well ... unlike some folks, i am pretty sure we will get enough information about what actually happened eventually. I know too many reporters to think that something this well documented would just ... disappear.

On another hand, I am pretty sure that Waymo is completely undisturbed by all this, and Uber isn't too upset. They both know that their programs will proceed, and that these incidents will not generate too much press ... and that the news cycle erases everything from most people's minds pretty quickly anyway.

I doubt most people are anywhere near as interested in AVs as most of the posters in these couple threads. Even most of the other posters on this site aren't all worked up about it ... and since AVs supposedly can't see spokes, it is cyclists who should be most afraid, right?

Fact is, to most people this is about a third as important as the latest Kardashian instagram pic. And will be forgotten about as quickly.

njkayaker

IBM had to support Linux because everybody else was doing it (and the market required it).

They had to adopt it to be equal to their competition.

It's probably a small amount of the money they spend.

What's valuable to Google in Android isn't the free open source stuff. Google has been moving features out of Android into proprietary software.

If anybody can use the open source software it isn't a competitive advantage.

The AV software is like Google's proprietary advertising business.
The cars are like open source software (to Uber/etc).

tyrion

This is known as the Trolley Problem. Everybody working in AI is well aware of it.

tyrion

"the market required it" - they satisfy market requirements in order to make money.