More Fuel for the Self-Driving Car Fire

 

Just came across this article this morning. I’ll highlight one paragraph and add emphasis:

The linked report suggests that the artificial intelligence may never be “intelligent” enough to do what human beings are generally capable of doing. (Well, not all of us, of course. A couple of days driving in Florida will tell you that.) That may be true in some ways, but more than raw “intelligence,” the AI systems do not have human intuition. They aren’t as intuitive as humans in terms of trying to guess what the rest of the unpredictable humans will do at any given moment. In some of those cases, it’s not a question of the car not realizing it needs to do something, but rather making a correct guess about what specific action is required.

I’ve made this argument before, that humans are better at winging it than AI — so far.

Admiral Rickover was pretty much against using computers to run the engine room, with a couple of exceptions.  Any task that was deemed too monotonous was one, the other being any task that could be performed quicker by a computer.  Even so, these weren’t really computers in the AI sense, but rather electronic sensors with programming to handle the task at hand.  I’m sure modern submarine engine rooms have more computerization nowadays, but I’ll bet the crew can easily take over if the machines fail . . .

Published in Technology
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 210 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    We have something very close to this already, down to the separate lanes. It’s called the railroad. One “driver” for dozens if not hundreds of “trucks”.

    That’s the driver to replace, if any. The AI doesn’t even have to steer.

    It is worth noting that, despite the driver having a brake, the trains usually hit and kill/destroy whatever is in front of them anyway. 

    Honestly, the human in the cab is mostly there to demonstrate that someone ‘cares’. And to keep the therapy industry going of course. 

    • #31
  2. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Barfly (View Comment):

    I think Artificial is the right word for today’s machine intelligence. When we do make a real intelligence, and we will soon, it’ll best be called Synthetic Intelligence. It will be real, not artificial.

    I’ve taken a couple of shots at it myself, one serious. Spent three whole months at it, did nothing else but drink beer and fish. I backed off when I realized my neuron model didn’t hack it and I needed more reading.

     

    I don’t know how we’d characterize the difference between AI and SI. Does the latter imply self-awareness?

    I’m pretty confident that we’ll get to some incredible level of pattern recognition, and produce systems that fly through the old Turing Test without a hitch. (We’re probably there already, depending on who is administering the test.)

    But self-awareness? I don’t think we know where that comes from, yet, and I’m not at all sure that we’ll know it when we see it in a machine — or know when it’s real, versus something the machine is trying to convince us is real.

    At this point, neither great success nor great failure would surprise me.

    • #32
  3. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Stad (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    It’ll work reliably when all the cars are computer-driven. People are too unpredictable.

    I trained my kids to stop if they see a ball enter the road because a Child is likely to follow. AI going to do that?

    OK, maybe that is added to the program. Blind drives?

    People can do better

    I guarantee you once all cars are computer driven, they will be put under control of a government master computer . . .

    Open the pod bay door, HAL.

    • #33
  4. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I doubt the manufacturers would allow themselves to be held culpable for accidents of even computer piloted driving.  But can you imagine the owner’s manual for a driverless car?

    The manual for my newish car is 736 pages long.    What does “allow themselves to be held culpable” mean?   Someone is always at fault.  If you don’t believe me ask any trail lawyer

    • #34
  5. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    One of the interesting side effects of AI was that pretty much everyone in the industry thought that AI would replace routine tasks first but never replace human decisions. This hasn’t proven to be true in many cases. It turns out that many of those monotonous tasks aren’t actually completely routine. Yes, the welding robot on a car assembly line can be a robot, but so many other tasks end up being much harder to program because of minor variations. For example, we use automated harvesting with combines where the on-board computer uses GPS to align the harvester on the rows for planting, maintenance, and harvesting. But, there is still a driver in the combine to deal with unknowable circumstances.

    AI driving is relatively easily, if all the vehicles are AIs. Then the human factor is removed from the equation and its fairly simple for each vehicle to know what the other will do because they all use either the same, or similar algorithms. One potential solution would be for highways to have self-driving only lanes, similar to HOV lanes where human driven vehicles aren’t present. Its been shown that in those situations, the lanes could operate at higher speeds with less gaps between vehicles (as in inches as opposed to feet between cars going 70mph). That could do a lot to reduce congestion, but doesn’t mean that self-driving is ubiquitous.

    In my world, AI is really taking off doing information analysis of unstructured data. One example is taking documents like invoices, credit memos, etc. and processing them based on the data in them. This is a place that AI has really taken off and will continue to grow. It will get rid of middle management and information workers by reducing their need to review and store content which is interesting.

    So are you saying “Adios, middle class”?

    • #35
  6. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    Let’s wait to start the experiment for 30 years. That way I won’t have to live the global chaos. 

    • #36
  7. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    It’ll work reliably when all the cars are computer-driven. People are too unpredictable.

    The point is – computers are no where near the ability that is needed. If a hefty bag blows in front of you on a hiway where your vehicle is doing 55mph, do you really want the AI system to slam on the brakes? With the added possibility that the car behind you is not expecting yours to stop.

    The AI is so bad on these vehicles that people in AZ suburban neighborhoods were running out and disabling them, as too many people were getting involved in accidents from the test vehicles.

    • #37
  8. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Self-driving cars, smart meters, GPS, cellphones and refrigerators with wifi. It’s a spider web.

    • #38
  9. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    I had read a while ago that in a world in which autonomous vehicles and human-controlled vehicles shared the roadways, one of the frequent causes of accidents was that the autonomous vehicles didn’t behave the way human drivers expected human-controlled vehicles to behave.

    AI operates on chance % to guess what will happen and the decide on best course of action. While it can be super sophisticated, sometimes the action doesn’t need to happen and it results in what would appear to be a random act.

    We humans can, in a flash, judge a situation and hold potential maneuvers in mind without acting on them and then figure the right course even if it’s no action or one with low probability. The computer will need to jump through more hoops to come to the conclusion that the lower probability action is the best course or that no action is needed after all. For instance, there’s an 80% chance that a child on the side of the road will run in front of my vehicle or step out where they shouldn’t. I do not make the choice to act on that probability by swerving to miss a kid that has not yet fallen into the street. Rather, I slow down to alter my reaction time need. There’s still that 80% chance thing hanging over the AI’s head. What do you do with it? How should the AI handle it? Even if it did slow down, what is it supposed to do with that probability if not to act on it?

    Part of the problem is we don’t really understand how WE make the decisions we make. Attempts to study those actions and decisions by, say, airline pilots still results in a less intelligent AI. There’s still an ingredient missing.

    • #39
  10. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I doubt the manufacturers would allow themselves to be held culpable for accidents of even computer piloted driving. But can you imagine the owner’s manual for a driverless car?

    The manual for my newish car is 736 pages long. What does “allow themselves to be held culpable” mean? Someone is always at fault. If you don’t believe me ask any trail lawyer.

    I go back to the guy who put his ladder on a soggy pile of manure, tipped, and hurt himself.  The ladder company settled or lost, and put another sticker on the ladder warming about soggy manure.  After that, the company should not be at fault, and it’s the operators.

    Any jury can award anything but warning stickers serve a legal purpose.

    • #40
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    But we already have railroad transportation…

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I’m sometimes reminded of this scene:

     

     

    • #42
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Barfly (View Comment):

    I think Artificial is the right word for today’s machine intelligence. When we do make a real intelligence, and we will soon, it’ll best be called Synthetic Intelligence. It will be real, not artificial.

    I’ve taken a couple of shots at it myself, one serious. Spent three whole months at it, did nothing else but drink beer and fish. I backed off when I realized my neuron model didn’t hack it and I needed more reading.

     

    If you do succeed, remember to change your name to Miles Dyson so we know who to blame.

    • #43
  14. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    But we already have railroad transportation…

    It was just a thought. Forget it if you want.

    But if we already have railroads, why do we still have trucks? They must fulfill some need.

    • #44
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    But we already have railroad transportation…

    It was just a thought. Forget it if you want.

    But if we already have railroads, why do we still have trucks? They must fulfill some need.

    It’s the “last mile” stuff.  Getting things from the train to the store where they get sold.  Not long-haul stuff, and less suitable for AI.

    • #45
  16. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    But we already have railroad transportation…

    It was just a thought. Forget it if you want.

    But if we already have railroads, why do we still have trucks? They must fulfill some need.

    It’s the “last mile” stuff. Getting things from the train to the store where they get sold. Not long-haul stuff, and less suitable for AI.

    We still have long-haul truckers. I don’t know the percentage, but they still exist. There is a reason they do. But as I implied, I have no dog in this fight. 

    • #46
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    But we already have railroad transportation…

    It was just a thought. Forget it if you want.

    But if we already have railroads, why do we still have trucks? They must fulfill some need.

    It’s the “last mile” stuff. Getting things from the train to the store where they get sold. Not long-haul stuff, and less suitable for AI.

    We still have long-haul truckers. I don’t know the percentage, but they still exist. There is a reason they do. But as I implied, I have no dog in this fight.

    Yes they do exist, but more could be shifted to rail if there were less regulation etc.

    • #47
  18. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I’m sometimes reminded of this scene:

     

     

    Give me another 30 years and Pete Buttigieg and his cronies can run the highways like this clip.

    • #48
  19. Timothy Landon Inactive
    Timothy Landon
    @TimothyLandon

    George Savage (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    It’ll work reliably when all the cars are computer-driven. People are too unpredictable.

    Matt, I think you may have identified the next crusade. Here’s the scenario: Given the enormous investment in fully autonomous cars, together with the lack of success at handling edge cases that humans hardly notice, developers will agitate for mandatory autonomous driving. Rather than jettisoning the goal in light of repeated failures, the command-and-control types will declare human drivers to be the obstacle to reaching Utopia.

    I think this would require roads designed to be driven on by autonomous vehicles.  The modern car and modern roads are designed for human drivers.  Unless and until we have cars and roads designed for autonomous vehicles it will be very difficult for autonomous vehicles to operate using existing infrastructure.

    • #49
  20. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I don’t know how we’d characterize the difference between AI and SI.

    AI is artificial. SI will be real intelligence. I think that wraps up the difference.

    • #50
  21. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Timothy Landon (View Comment):

    George Savage (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    It’ll work reliably when all the cars are computer-driven. People are too unpredictable.

    Matt, I think you may have identified the next crusade. Here’s the scenario: Given the enormous investment in fully autonomous cars, together with the lack of success at handling edge cases that humans hardly notice, developers will agitate for mandatory autonomous driving. Rather than jettisoning the goal in light of repeated failures, the command-and-control types will declare human drivers to be the obstacle to reaching Utopia.

    I think this would require roads designed to be driven on by autonomous vehicles. The modern car and modern roads are designed for human drivers. Unless and until we have cars and roads designed for autonomous vehicles it will be very difficult for autonomous vehicles to operate using existing infrastructure.

    Exactly. I’m always testing the “lane keeping assist” function.it gets confessed with bad paint jobs and those tar patch lines. Sunlight and dirt can affect sensors. This is a silly pursuit when money could be used on technology that helps. 

    • #51
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I will never have a car without the Subaru Eyesight system or the equivalent. It’s less fatiguing and less stress. I prefer having the warning sounds.  The adaptive cruise control is wonderful. I’m rarely dissatisfied with how it functions. 

    • #52
  23. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I will never have a car without the Subaru Eyesight system or the equivalent. It’s less fatiguing and less stress. I prefer having the warning sounds. The adaptive cruise control is wonderful. I’m rarely dissatisfied with how it functions.

    As an assistant, I love it. I’m still the driver.

    • #53
  24. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I don’t know how we’d characterize the difference between AI and SI.

    AI is artificial. SI will be real intelligence. I think that wraps up the difference.

    I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. Can you expand on that? What would be a capability or attribute of synthetic intelligence that artificial intelligence would not possess, or vice versa?

    • #54
  25. TomJeffries Coolidge
    TomJeffries
    @TomJeffries

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I think someday we will pull it off, but not soon.

     

    I hope not.  I will need to find a new line of work.  Lol.

     

    • #55
  26. Mad Gerald Coolidge
    Mad Gerald
    @Jose

    TBA (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    We have something very close to this already, down to the separate lanes. It’s called the railroad. One “driver” for dozens if not hundreds of “trucks”.

    That’s the driver to replace, if any. The AI doesn’t even have to steer.

    It is worth noting that, despite the driver having a brake, the trains usually hit and kill/destroy whatever is in front of them anyway.

    Honestly, the human in the cab is mostly there to demonstrate that someone ‘cares’. And to keep the therapy industry going of course.

    Modern locomotives have a “dead man switch”.  Unless the driver is making constant inputs the train will stop.

    • #56
  27. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Mad Gerald (View Comment):
    Sam Harris was talking about self-driving cars a few years ago. He addressed the scenario where a child ran in front of a car, and the driver would have to decide whether to swerve into a crowd of pedestrians (or something similar).

    The biggest problem with self-driving is that transfers 100% of the liability of accidents from the driver to the manufacturer. The auto insurance industry is an $800B/year business, none of the car makers can afford that kind of liability.

    My favorite car is nearly 30 years old, and it’s owner’s manual is at least 10% warnings against misuse. I have a newer chain saw and it’s manual is more than 50% warnings of misuse. The purpose of these warnings is to protect the manufacturer from liability.

    I doubt the manufacturers would allow themselves to be held culpable for accidents of even computer piloted driving. But can you imagine the owner’s manual for a driverless car?

    You can worry when the manual warns you against speaking harshly to the car.

    Yes, of course. I hadn’t thought about that.

    Will the self-driving cars be named ‘Hal’?

    • #57
  28. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Django (View Comment):

    I heard a news report that truck drivers are in demand and a real shortage is expected. Made me wonder if we could or should develop a parallel interstate highway system with traffic restricted to self-driving trucks. Make them hybrid. Place automated charging stations at appropriate intervals. Two problems tackled at once: 1) the distribution part of the supply chain, 2) extended test cases for self-driving vehicles.

    I’ve read an article recommending automated trucks for the in between city driving and let humans handle the trickier bits at the beginning and end. A bit similar to autopilots on airplanes. Although I think some of the better systems can even handle takeoff and landing.

    • #58
  29. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    I used to be more bullish on self-driving cars, as I was sympathetic to the argument that they don’t have to be perfect but rather they just have to be better than humans, and humans are really bad at driving.

    However, one factor that has made me less bullish is the fact that self-driving cars can be pretty susceptible to intentional attacks. 

    For example, if some prankster stands at the side of the road holding a stop sign, human drivers can recognize that it’s a prank and ignore the guy, but self-driving cars will stop.

    Given the large number of highly-innovative pranksters in society, this problem becomes very difficult to solve.

    • #59
  30. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I will never have a car without the Subaru Eyesight system or the equivalent. It’s less fatiguing and less stress. I prefer having the warning sounds. The adaptive cruise control is wonderful. I’m rarely dissatisfied with how it functions.

    I’d like to try adaptive cruise control. It sounds wonderful. Months ago it came up on a thread here and someone commented that he’d driven around Chicago, during rush hour, and never had to touch the pedals. 

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.