Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's an ACM article which always comes to mind whenever I see discussions about self-driving cars. The title is "Automation should be like Iron Man, not Ultron". The idea is "augment the human, don't try and replace the human," since the combination of the human and computer will always be better than either one alone (at least with our current level of programming/AI/hardware capabilities).

To apply this to self-driving cars, we need more driver support. Visually identify cars and obstacles which could be an issue to supplant the driver's identification. Help the driver keep in a lane. Help the driver keep a speed relative to traffic around them. Help drivers see in the dark, and past bright headlights. Help drivers see lane lines through snow packed roads.

Help the driver see and hear things, but don't override their decisions.

Some of these technologies are available today in luxury cars - let's make it available to everyone on the road.



Except most accidents are cause by drivers not paying attention (distracted / fatigued / alcohol) or from speeding[0], not from being unable to identify the traffic around them. So giving them more information wouldn't help them reduce accidents, reducing the requirement of driver attention would (i.e. self-driving cars)

[0] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/most-common-causes-coll...


Adding information - warnings - would help:

- Distracted drivers, bringing their attention back to the hazards on the road.

- Fatigued drivers, by alerting them to a hazard they missed.

- Drunk... yeah, probably won't help much here. Hopefully we can get to the point where you can't start such cars while impaired by alcohol.

- Speeding - again, improving knowledge of hazards, such as corners they can't navigate at the current speed, or vehicles which are at drastically slower/faster speeds.

Don't be quick to dismiss how technology can augment humans. Anything a car can learn to eventually handle on its own, it can notify a human about on a much faster time scale (as in it won't be the perpetual 3 years away, it could be now, since we don't have to perfect the reaction, just the detection).

And, perhaps most importantly for you, this doesn't preclude the development and deployment of fully automatic driving systems when they're actually at level 4/5. In the mean time, we can make a meaningful and broad drop in the vehicle accident statistics.

EDIT: Since this may not be clear - I expect this information and these warnings to be coming 4-5 seconds before an incident would occur, giving the driver classes you've pointed out sufficient time to react.


Or putting all that money into making cars that can't speed and that can track if the driver isn't paying attention.

If the goal really is just to reduce how many people die in traffic there are far easier ways than self-driving cars. The goal of self-driving cars seems to be far more than just reducing traffic deaths, that's just the part that sounds good in public.


I'll just put this here: "The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment" – Warren Bennis


Marvel Studios writing it as a baddie is not a very compelling reason to avoid automation. As of today, the vast majority of autonomous devices and robots are factory devices that have minimal input from humans.


It might be worth reading beyond the title and into the article itself.

It's a good article with coherent arguments.


> It might be worth reading beyond the title and into the article itself.

I don't know why authors give their work flippant titles and then are confused when people assume it's a flippant piece of work.

'Don't judge a book by its cover' isn't a reasonable complaint when the author has deliberately given it a silly cover!


Or, it's a surprisingly relevant comparison (on the topic of the article) using pop culture references? Augmented humanity vs. the best AI they can create.

When it comes to titles for articles, this is both memorable and far less click-baity as is normal these days.


Deliberately misinterpreting things isn't useful.

"Don't judge book by a cover" doesn't apply to judging an article by it's title. See how silly it is?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: