[PLUG-TALK] Driving in Cities: How Ants Commute

Rigel Hope gnu at rigelhope.org
Tue Jan 20 23:20:12 UTC 2015


i dont understand how the possibility of a horde of self driving cars
circling the block because their owners are "just running in" (the AI
version of double parking and putting your hazard lights on) does not seem
to have been considered, nor how it is supposed to help mitigate gridlock
On Jan 20, 2015 3:02 PM, "Keith Lofstrom" <keithl at gate.kl-ic.com> wrote:

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 10:31, Larry Brigman <larry.brigman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Put those sensors and controls into the cars and remove the control from
> what we currently
> > call drivers.  That would put things into a much more orderly flow.
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:42:13PM -0800, Russell Johnson wrote:
> > Isn’t that exactly what Google is doing with their self drive cars?
>
> Because AI is becoming capable of doing what is very difficult
> for humans (logic, accounting, playing chess, indexing the web),
> we presume that what is easy for humans (visual/acoustic pattern
> recognition, movement tracking and response) must be easy for
> computers.  Not even remotely true.
>
> Your brain is primarily a sight/sound/tactile processor, with
> a powerful social computer and a very weak logic processor.
> It is easy to duplicate and exceed the recently evolved logic
> processor.  The social processor evolved over a million years,
> and the movement processor over a billion years.  The movement
> processor is so optimized (down to the molecular level) that
> the general task is mindbogglingly complex, well beyond the
> technological state of the art.
>
> I talked with Wes at the clinic about a "skyrail" system to
> lower cars into the flow of freeway traffic, and pluck them back
> out again - a very artificial and constrained driving task,
> though still somewhat beyond current AI capabilities.  The
> long exit-free westbound stretch of I-84 from 181st to 47th
> would be a great place to try this.  With more geeks and
> fewer lawyers, Tokyo might be better.  Broadly applied, this
> technology would eliminate the need for high self-powered
> onramp acceleration, huge high horsepower engines, and all
> the weight and pollution that entails.
>
> The general driving task - looking for anomalies in the road,
> predicting the behavior of other drivers, pedestrians, animals,
> etc. - involves rapidly building a dynamic world model with
> human social knowledge.  A ball bounces into the road - slam
> on the brakes, there may be a kid chasing it.  A pine cone
> bounces into the freeway - slam on the brakes and risk getting
> rear ended?  Probably not.  That is a huge social calculation,
> on top of powerful visual computing, performed in milliseconds.
> We invented controlled-access freeways to intentionally remove
> most of the anomalies, permitting safe operation at high speed.
>
> Still, every accident and low-vision weather condition creates
> dangerous anomalies, like the half-a-dozen trucks rear-ending
> each other on I-84 near Baker a few days ago.  Those were
> attentive, skilled, professional drivers on a proper freeway;
> what would Google do?
>
> Google can't even do searches right - lately, they seem to be
> doing template matching rather than logical winnowing of their
> gigantic corpus.  There's no way children will be safe from a
> Google-controlled template-driven car, even with fast frame rates
> and human-scale visual pattern processing milliseconds away.
> Human drivers are not perfect, of course, but most drivers
> avoid many frightening accidents far more often than they fail.
>
> What computers CAN add to driving is "virtual omniscience",
> information about the road ahead that drivers don't have.
> Route planning and congestion observation is easy, congestion
> prediction is possible.  Debris on the road from an accident
> three days ago?  Diff to the scene from a week ago, magnify
> the anomalies, and present them on the heads-up display to
> the driver, while notifying the highway maintenance crew
> to clean up the dangerous stuff (at night, when the roads
> are empty but the stuff is hard to see).
>
> It is annoying that programmers spend so much time attempting
> to bypass excellent human pattern recognition and doing a
> lousy job, when there are tasks that people are very poor at
> which can be automated easily and profitably.  Humans, plus
> tools that compensate for weaknesses, can be an incredibly
> powerful combination, far more capable and cost-effective
> than humans or computers alone.
>
> Keith
>
> --
> Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20150120/e902ea68/attachment.html>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list