|
Megabound posted:No, but I would trust a tuned, trialled and rigorously tested program. Algorithms aren't a magic spell that makes computers work gooder
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Algorithms aren't a magic spell that makes computers work gooder No, they're combined in specifically designed solutions for executing tasks reliably.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
More russian haircuts, http://i.imgur.com/XEDdlRR.gifv
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Lime Tonics posted:More russian haircuts, I feel like split ends would be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Lime Tonics posted:More russian haircuts, A real hatchet job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:If a company decides to use Windows for their autonomous whatever, it's clearly their fault if anything goes wrong. If not Windows, OSX? Linux? It doesn't matter. The core of the question is do you trust that the software won't bug out on you. You are not talking about the Space Shuttle programmed to fly a nice and tight profile with a machine of known performance bug tested to the point it is a truly bug free program. Unlike a word document if the computer on the plane crashes auto save is not going to help you. Good going referencing the trolley problem and not understanding it by throwing up your hands and declaring everyone dead. Yay third way! Megabound posted:No, but I would trust a tuned, trialled and rigorously tested program. You know you are not going to get this program. The US military has an unlimited budget to design software for 1 plane and they routinely gently caress that up. What are the chances that someone would come up with a "Plane OS" that can cover so many variants of aircraft with so many different internal equipment and histories. Hence why I referenced Windows as it has to deal with the same issue and MS also has near unlimited resources they can tap. Even in a closed system like iOS where the variants are known and measured on 2 hands craps out too much for such a critical application. Just finding large contiguous area would get you killed. You would need to identify the material the ground is made of. Is it ploughed? Crops? Ice? Camera knocked out, iced over or partial electrical failure rendering a bunch of sensors blind? What about people? What happens if there are no green zones like airports in middle of cities? What if there is no emergency at all but the plane thinks so? Megabound posted:No, they're combined in specifically designed solutions for executing tasks reliably. Another great way to get killed. Here is a non-harmful example of a bunch of seemingly harmless algorithms interacting to cause unexpected results. Each item you add drives up the complexity massively which in turn increases points of failure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yWf6BHqiWM I would trust a automated car in time as it has a easy clearly defined acceptable fail state, but I wouldn't do that same for a plane as there is far too many failure modes that I know a computer can't handle or be programmed to assuming the failure isn't the computer itself. Lurking Haro posted:Way to go, equalling drive-assist systems to autonomous ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:If not Windows, OSX? Linux? It doesn't matter. The core of the question is do you trust that the software won't bug out on you. You are not talking about the Space Shuttle programmed to fly a nice and tight profile with a machine of known performance bug tested to the point it is a truly bug free program. Unlike a word document if the computer on the plane crashes auto save is not going to help you. I don't have a clue so this is an honest question: what is the current state of software control in modern cars? Do they have control over the engine and braking system such that they could accelerate you down the street and plough into oncoming traffic? If so, loads of us are trusting software with our lives. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, I'll be happy if they perform as good as humans. Performing better would just be icing on the cake. Over 30,000 people die on the roads in the US each year, the bulk of which is a result of driver behaviour. I wonder how many deaths the computers will be allowed before they are considered a failure?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I don't have a clue so this is an honest question: what is the current state of software control in modern cars? Do they have control over the engine and braking system such that they could accelerate you down the street and plough into oncoming traffic? If so, loads of us are trusting software with our lives. Throttle-by-wire has been a thing since AT LEAST 2003 or so. The issue is that the OEs are allowing the LTE/4G connection access to the ECM/BCM, which is loving idiotic. I think it was Chrysler that had an incident where people had hacked into the BCM of some Jeep models, and could apply brakes remotely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
What if the autonomous truck doesn't realise it's over-height and goes down a tunnel it's too big for? What if the driving software locks up and it drives into a motorcyclist? What if the on-board computer has insufficient resources and fails to calculate its course in time? What if the software drives too fast to negotiate a corner? What if the computer is on amphetamines? GotLag fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
the dang wiki leak of the cia from like last month confirmed that they are capable of destroying your car remotely if it has network capabilities. never drive in a networked vehicle
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
hackers could turn your car into a BOMB
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
We are finally approaching the point to where I can download a car. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
lol that anybody here thinks they'd be interesting enough for anybody to ever hack "guys a very small number of people know of vulnerabilities that take a ton of technical knowledge to act on, therefore modernizing cars is bad"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Tumble posted:lol that anybody here thinks they'd be interesting enough for anybody to ever hack Yeah imagine the Internet of Things but for all Toyotas and it makes them crash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Tumble posted:lol that anybody here thinks they'd be interesting enough for anybody to ever hack yeah its not like there's any value in someone controlling your brakes to demand money from you right. no one would threaten someone with violence for money
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
part of the point of that wiki leaks thing on the cia was that most or all of those tools they developed are in the wild right now. the things are available
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:We are finally approaching the point to where I can download a car. http://boingboing.net/2017/03/22/make-hay-while-the-sun-shines.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
MausoleumExtremist posted:It will most likely get delayed for decades by transportation lobbyists/UAW/Teamsters etc. Additionally, for the same reason we don't have self-flying commercial jets it'll at most result in having a driver in the seat as a backup. It takes probably costs on the order of magnitude of what, a couple thousand dollars or so per flight to have a pilot's and copilot's asses in those seats? That seems reasonable as a back-up in case the automated systems fail, plus they handle other miscellaneous responsibilities that would still have to be handled by other employees which is at least a partial offset to the cost. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It takes probably costs on the order of magnitude of what, a couple thousand dollars or so per flight to have a pilot's and copilot's asses in those seats? That seems reasonable as a back-up in case the automated systems fail, plus they handle other miscellaneous responsibilities that would still have to be handled by other employees which is at least a partial offset to the cost. Hell, you could even let the pilot and copilot fly it and save thousands that you would have spent installing the computer
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:If not Windows, OSX? Linux? It doesn't matter. The core of the question is do you trust that the software won't bug out on you. You are not talking about the Space Shuttle programmed to fly a nice and tight profile with a machine of known performance bug tested to the point it is a truly bug free program. Unlike a word document if the computer on the plane crashes auto save is not going to help you. Anything that is going to run an fully autonomous machine that can kill people will have to be safety certified to an existing standard. An example would be avionics software certification, and that is going to include the operating system. Safety critical certified OS's are not that numerous and they are incredibly expensive. They also require hardware that is going to match the safety critical aspects of failure states, so think higher grade components, connectors etc and redundancy. Very expensive as well, and always behind the performance curve by some margin because time to market for certified hardware is so long. For the highest level of safety certification used in aerospace, it is possible to see 6 LoC per programmer month. That includes producing verified documentation regarding all the design, requirements, state analysis, validation, verification etc etc. So very expensive to write software as well. Megabound posted:No, but I would trust a tuned, trialled and rigorously tested program. Like, dude, if it was simple, it would already be done. It just isn't, at all. Sure, yeah - so you are going to put realtime camera(s) data into your control loops? Maybe use some cool deep learning techniques? Except many image analysis techniques are technically uncertifiable, because they often express invariant solutions or are otherwise fundamentally un-testable. This is a major problem for algorithm design in complex applications in safety critical applications in general, and finding a landing area is just one of many more safety critical capabilities you'd need. Even if you want to handwave the ridiculously complicated process of reliably determining a safe landing area, you also now need to process a huge amount of data in realtime, and we're still far away from being able to do that without literal tons of computers. Gromit posted:I don't have a clue so this is an honest question: what is the current state of software control in modern cars? Do they have control over the engine and braking system such that they could accelerate you down the street and plough into oncoming traffic? If so, loads of us are trusting software with our lives. Yeah, but here's the thing - the software that processes throttle or brake inputs is pretty simple so the certification for drive by wire systems probably only cost companies a few uh, millions of dollars to do to a reasonable safety standard. Well, actually for toyota it was lot more, after the lawsuits ha ha. Putting security vulnerable networked devices into same network as the control systems is a whole other ball of wax, but personally makes it clear to me that automakers are not even remotely close to being able to pull off a safe fully autonomous vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I don't have a clue so this is an honest question: what is the current state of software control in modern cars? Do they have control over the engine and braking system such that they could accelerate you down the street and plough into oncoming traffic? If so, loads of us are trusting software with our lives.  That's too vague a consideration though. Drill down a bit. The important thing to ask is why do people trust these control systems in the first place, and how applicable are those reasons to other problems? Well, the degree of trust is a function of their simplicity, predictability, constrained feature set, well defined operating conditions, and the exceedingly high quality standards they must meet. All those aspects of the system are related. More complexity multiplies - not adds to - the difficulty of making the system work safely and reliably across its various use cases. You need to test most combinations of features and subsystems together or it becomes more and more likely that little Timmy is going to turn into a beef patty due to some oversight. So this burden can very quickly become a profound one. I work with people who develop these systems and they say just the extra verification work needed to quantify and guarantee safety in their systems adds two extra years to the development time and millions to the cost. These are relatively speaking very simple systems too. Self-driving on the other hand maxes out every single one of those considerations to their craziest levels, multiplying up the verification requirements to a degree that I can hardly even describe. Making something safe despite unlimited complexity, imperfect information, unpredictable conditions, a massive feature set... it's a nightmare project. Making it work at all is the lowest bar possible and even that's a really drat tough one to clear. Gromit posted:When it comes to autonomous vehicles, I'll be happy if they perform as good as humans. Performing better would just be icing on the cake. Over 30,000 people die on the roads in the US each year, the bulk of which is a result of driver behaviour. I wonder how many deaths the computers will be allowed before they are considered a failure? Also consider that for each fatal crash there are 170 more crashes that wreck the car but don't kill anybody, totalling to more than five million. That's a lot of crashes to be responsible for. Repairs, new cars, hospital costs. All our fault. I don't think we could release a product with that kind of risk without it being the world's biggest albatross around our necks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
drat, I really should be making these long posts at work instead of on Saturday night. SAD!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
I work in factory automation and machine building and it's only recently that PLC hardware has been qualified to a level that allows it to control something as simple as the e-stop button and machine guard latches. For the most part, everything safety related is still done through double-redundant hardware relay modules that cost 10x as much as they would without the certification.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster is a self-driving car IRL and doesn't want anyone to horn in on his territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Blitter posted:Putting security vulnerable networked devices into same network as the control systems is a whole other ball of wax, but personally makes it clear to me that automakers are not even remotely close to being able to pull off a safe fully autonomous vehicle. Most automakers (I'm looking at you, General Motors,) still seem to treat automotive software as a hard part of the vehicle, and sold under the same warranty. Your Bluetooth integration is so buggy that it flat out doesn't work? Too bad, buy a new car; We don't offer software updates unless it's part of a recall. This approach to software simply will not continue to work going forward, since as mentioned above, cars are almost all now connected to the internet at some level, and the OE is the author, or at least responsible for, the software in the vehicle. A network vulnerability that allows malicious control of the vehicle is just as dangerous to a nine year old car as it is to a brand new one parked on the showroom floor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Don't get me started. I've been a part of discussions where department heads were actively pushing to add a permanent hardware backdoor in our security-critical product to reduce risk. The understanding is just not there at a high level in a lot of non-software-specialised companies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:A network vulnerability that allows malicious control of the vehicle is just as dangerous to a nine year old car as it is to a brand new one parked on the showroom floor. Is there a reason control software can't just be on a separate system than entertainment and other features that could benefit from the connectivity but aren't critical? If the control systems need to be patched, that can be done via physical media at dealerships - not that this can't be hijacked, but it adds a significant barrier and even a vulnerability created this way couldn't be remotely accessed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Is there a reason control software can't just be on a separate system than entertainment and other features that could benefit from the connectivity but aren't critical? If the control systems need to be patched, that can be done via physical media at dealerships - not that this can't be hijacked, but it adds a significant barrier and even a vulnerability created this way couldn't be remotely accessed. It would add $10 to the cost of the car, so no, it's not feasible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
karoshi posted:It would add $10 to the cost of the car, so no, it's not feasible. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
GotLag posted:What if the autonomous truck doesn't realise it's over-height and goes down a tunnel it's too big for?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
karoshi posted:It would add $10 to the cost of the car, so no, it's not feasible. more like 3.50 and still unfeasible for the same reason. You think you've seen rear end in a top hat customers working in retail, try selling something to Fiat-Chrysler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
my dad worked at ford in the 90s and these sound like the stories he tells. He wanted to get GPS put in cars, but they wouldn't because they hadn't sold any cars with GPS the previous year. How can you sell cars with GPS when you don't even offer that as an option?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
 click for big.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I don't think a computer now or even in many decades time could or would have selected to land on the Hudson or picked the solution in every other emergency that the pilot pulled everyone asses out of the fire. You are asking people to program intuition and to formulate answers in contexts that are well outside it's normal operation with extremely limited information. Now to be honest less than half the pilots who even knew the solution, and knew how to execute it even managed to land the drat bird without casualties. Megabound posted:No, but I would trust a tuned, trialled and rigorously tested program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Lmao you have no idea what you're talking about. A Vision Based Forced Landing Site Selection System for an Autonomous UAV One among many of papers exploring using a computer vision system for emergency landings in UAVs. Blitter posted:Like, dude, if it was simple, it would already be done. It just isn't, at all. I never said it was simple, I was exploring a method that could be utilised after a lot of work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/OHbjpOU.gifv
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
Isn't the brake on a car just the same physical thing it always was though? Like there might be a program that would allow automatic braking, but it wouldn't ever interfere with the driver's ability to step on the brake and stop the car? I'd heard all those Toyota crashes were likely driver error after it was all said and done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Isn't the brake on a car just the same physical thing it always was though? Like there might be a program that would allow automatic braking, but it wouldn't ever interfere with the driver's ability to step on the brake and stop the car? I'd heard all those Toyota crashes were likely driver error after it was all said and done. Brakes generally still have a physical connection between the master cylinder and the pedal. The throttle no longer does; It is completely electronic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:Brakes generally still have a physical connection between the master cylinder and the pedal. The throttle no longer does; It is completely electronic. Alright, so all this "Macedonian teenagers are going to hijack your Internet-connected car on the freeway and hold you ransom for bitcoins" stuff is malarkey. There's not a car in the world that will keep going when the brake is engaged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 11:26
|
|