Comment by joering2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joering2 | Hacker News Reader

To me, there are still so many questions left unanswered...

First and foremost, the majority that believes AC will resolve heavy traffic in the cities is wrong. At the end, its about people, not cars. Think how you behave nowadays in the city crowded with cars -- you are perfectly aware not to f*ck with the driver, because if you step in his way you may get killed. We are humans, we make mistakes. Now, I would imagine those super cars must see everything around -- otherwise noone in the GOV in their sound mind would have approved AC to drive around humans. Therefore, I can imagine hoards of people taking advantage of this and just simply walking in front of a riding AC just because they know its not a human steering the wheel and that the car has no other choice than stop in front of the pedestrian, regardless if he stepped in and force the right of way or not. Heck, most likely the car will not even hunk or course at the pedestrian. Awesome! In the crowded cities, people will establish this behavior: before walking into the street, check the car - oh its AC, fine I am stepping in, no worries! And whos gonna enforce those violators? 100 more cameras at each corner??

Second, I still have no idea how on Earth would AC riding on a highway know that it is a black cat, not a black bag laying on the street. We humans see the difference faster than a blink of an eye. Are you telling me that Google invented perfect image recognition system that will be always right? What if someone paints a black cat on a bag that flies low on the highway?? -- will the car stop or not? I can see the news: google AC ran over Missis Jennings's cat -- noone is liable; noone will be responsible.

The bottom line: sooner or later AC will make a mistake. Hope it won't be in front of you.

Last, who is liable when the system makes a mistake? When you crash into other vehicle and there are victims. Are you liable? Can you go to jail? Will google go to jail? or car manufacturer? Are you telling me there are NO chances whatsoever that this will happen again?? [1] [2]

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35589163/ns/business-autos/t/toy... [2] http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-02-22/news/27057005_1_s...

edit: not to mention all the suiciders -- now its not only trains, but I can throw myself under riding AC.

> 100 more cameras at each corner??

There are cameras on the autonomous cars, I'm sure they'd do the trick just fine.

> Second, I still have no idea how on Earth would AC riding on a highway know that it is a black cat, not a black bag laying on the street.

LIDAR. A black bag laying on the street is virtually invisible to it.

> The bottom line: sooner or later AC will make a mistake.

True, but they'll have to make a lot of mistakes to be worse than humans.

> Last, who is liable when the system makes a mistake?

That's a good question, and not one that can be answered categorically for all classes of motor vehicle accident. I'd imagine that the driver of an autonomous car would be liable for their actions in the same sense that a pilot is when they place their plane on autopilot (or a skipper when the use an autotiller to steer their ship). If it can be proven to be poor engineering on the manufacturer's part, then likely the manufacturer will be held responsible. Otherwise it will probably be the driver getting sent to jail. Or maybe a mixture of both if both parties can be proven to have acted negligently.

> ...but I can throw myself under riding AC.

Yet you're incapable of throwing yourself under a normal car? Doesn't this contradict your previous point about sabotage?

Though admittedly sabotage is a very common concern with automatic cars - what if somebody papers over a street sign or throws rocks at the car whilst it is on a sharp corner? In reality, malicious third parties are of concern, but not any more than if the vehicle was not autonomous. Human drivers can still be distracted by noisy passengers, intoxicated by alcohol and blinded by lasers; all you're doing by putting a robot in control is swapping the weaknesses of one system for the weaknesses of another. Ideally, there would be a mechanical backup system which could be controlled by the driver in the case of an emergency, which would effectively make autonomous cars more reliable than normal ones.

> LIDAR. A black bag laying on the street is virtually invisible to it.

so when the cats lays in front of it -- it will just run over it, not being able to see it?

> If it can be proven to be poor engineering

Usually after 10 years of deep investigation, given the parties have enough monetary resources to keep the momentum on the law wheel. Read the case I sent about the guy wrongly jailed. Had they not discovered, eventually that it was a car malfunction, he would have still been in jail.

> Yet you're incapable of throwing yourself under a normal car? Doesn't this contradict your previous point about sabotage?

I guess what I was trying to say is that I think getting killed by a car driven by machine feels easier on your conscious than being killed by a car who is driven by a human. I cant explain why.

> so when the cats lays in front of it -- it will just run over it, not being able to see it?

LIDAR stands for Light Detection And Ranging. Much like sonar (which is also used on an autonomous car) it is used to map 3D environments, producing models which can then be analysed by the computer. A plastic bag lying perfectly flat on a road would look like sensor noise, whereas a cat would be a noticeable obstacle (much like a fallen garbage bin or a basketball). This clip[0] from Udacity's CS373 class is great if you want to find out what an autonomous car "sees". In short, if you're a two dimensional cat, you're in trouble. Otherwise you should be fine :)

> Usually after 10 years of deep investigation,

What? I said "I'd imagine..." because that part of my post was pure speculation since AFAIK nobody has ever been in a serious autonomous car accident.

> I guess what I was trying to say is that I think getting killed by a car driven by machine feels easier on your conscious than being killed by a car who is driven by a human.

Touché, fair point.

[0]: http://youtu.be/XZL934YQ-FQ - you can skip to 0:55 if you just want to see the LIDAR-generated model

Unanswered or unaddressed by you? All of these questions have most certainly been answered or at least very seriously addressed with room for more conversation.

Huh? So are you saying the cars are too safe or not safe enough?

I was trying to say (pardon my English) that in the cities where the AC suppose to help, lots of people will be taking advantage of the "overprotective" system. When normally every time you are crossing the street you don't know what kind of driver is passing you, whether it is a good decent driver or a lunatic on acid, with AC all cars will drive and behave the same way. So people, knowing this will be likely to cross in front of the AC knowing it is smart enough to pull over safely enough not to hit the pedestrian. They will take advantage of knowing the computer's behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com