Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
AAA did a study and found autonomous braking doesn't work nearly as well as the manufacturers claim.
Very disappointing to buyers and they were advised not to count on self braking apps.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
Watched an interesting documentary the other night where in the leading experts developing AVs stated unequivocally that they themselves think total AVs (stage 4 and 5) are still a long way off. And this was from people with a lot of time and money invested in pursuing it. I was shocked myself. It wasn't from people you'd expect to say so.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
Uber's software seems full of holes. One obvious one is that it doesn't build a history for an object, so it didn't see the convergence of the course of the victim and the car, but only started to react when she was in front of the car. This is such a basic error, ignoring 60 years of target tracking, and 400 years of naval navigation, it really makes you wonder what the Hell their processes are.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
Uber's software seems full of holes. One obvious one is that it doesn't build a history for an object, so it didn't see the convergence of the course of the victim and the car, but only started to react when she was in front of the car. This is such a basic error, ignoring 60 years of target tracking, and 400 years of naval navigation, it really makes you wonder what the Hell their processes are.
I read that they actually build a history for an object. But in that case it was reclassifying her over and over between a standing pedestrian and a cyclist. And they seem to throw away the history whenever they reclassify an object for whatever reason.
A human doesn't need to know and have seen every object in existence to know what it might be seeing or to make the right decision while driving. Based on logical reasoning, we can make pretty good assumptions. If we see a human walking, drunk, crouched, running, crawling, we are still able to identify it as a human and not misidentify it as an animal or anything else, least because we are also able to interpret the context of where and when we are seeing it.
To do something like this in software (with zero-intelligence) is rather complex, if not to say impossible.
One thing I find rather more intriguing though - even if that AV couldn't make the proper distinction between bicycle and human - it shouldn't matter, because it was an object in a direct path plain and simple. In the end, it could have been an elephant, a robot from the future, a guy concealed in a box crawling over the road... it still should have stopped.
It's one thing to identify what you are seeing - but it's another of simply seeing that there's an object within the path of the car and no matter what it is, to stop.
If the whole AV industry is built with the goal of simply identifying anything 'moving' that could be potentially on the road, I wonder what will happen if there's an object there that a piece of software simply wasn't programmed to identify.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
A human doesn't need to know and have seen every object in existence to know what it might be seeing or to make the right decision while driving. Based on logical reasoning, we can make pretty good assumptions. If we see a human walking, drunk, crouched, running, crawling, we are still able to identify it as a human and not misidentify it as an animal or anything else, least because we are also able to interpret the context of where and when we are seeing it.
To do something like this in software (with zero-intelligence) is rather complex, if not to say impossible.
One thing I find rather more intriguing though - even if that AV couldn't make the proper distinction between bicycle and human - it shouldn't matter, because it was an object in a direct path plain and simple. In the end, it could have been an elephant, a robot from the future, a guy concealed in a box crawling over the road... it still should have stopped.
It's one thing to identify what you are seeing - but it's another of simply seeing that there's an object within the path of the car and no matter what it is, to stop.
If the whole AV industry is built with the goal of simply identifying anything 'moving' that could be potentially on the road, I wonder what will happen if there's an object there that a piece of software simply wasn't programmed to identify.
Not on the same scale maybe but have you used google lens?
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
In that documentary I mentioned they showed a pedestrian in a hoodie get hit by an AV because it, the AV had not been trained to recognize someone in a hoodie as a human.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
