英特尔，Waymo比较了优步第一个致命自治车祸的视觉系统

@alin popescu - 哇，你很清楚这是大人物，这里。你现在对自己感觉更好的是，你抨击了可能比你更少知识的人吗？之后，你的发布如何转发讨论？让我帮你：它没有。以免你缺乏对被竞争的人缺乏比别人更少的知识的理解，让我指出你有一个糟糕的书面英语。这是怎么感觉，大人物？恭喜 - 六个句子中的六个句子展示了恶劣的语法和或法术，这相当于100％的失败率。通过该轨道记录，我希望您不在自主传感器或软件上工作。但是，在本次讨论中有任何相关性吗？不，它既不是为了火焰MB而言 - 即使他可能比你更少知识。 So, what exactly is the point YOU are trying to make, big man? I'm making the point that you're a troll. But I digress, so a return to the topic at hand. . . While "those systems" may be called "INTELLIGENT" for a reason, they are also ARTIFICIAL. Historically this technology will improve over time, but don't make the mistake of comparing the current state of this technology to the eons of evolution of NATURAL intelligence we humans enjoy – which has the distinct advantage of thinking outside of programmatic responses; as well as, the much less understood, but highly significant component of intuition. I've driven an estimated 300,000 accident free miles in my lifetime. I've done this by anticipating the actions of other drivers. While my attention is on the cars immediately in front and to the sides of me, I'm observing and analyzing the traffic several cars ahead. Since I am human, I can think like a human and therefore, can anticipate how other humans are going to act or react to a dynamic set of conditions. I think what MB is getting at is that there is no practical way to program the infinite variables that a modern driver, artificial or not, must process in real time. For machine learning to work, it has to be fed conditions to learn from (data, or what we might call "experience"). We contemporary humans are fed that data over 15+ years as passengers before we get behind the wheel. That's a lot of experience, even if it's second hand. Autonomous vehicles don't have that experience base; thus, vehicle engineers have to feed that experience, that data, into the system. Simply identifying a hazard and slamming on the brakes is not adequate – even if it slams the brakes on 100 times faster than a human can. But, it's a false dichotomy to pit all human drivers agains all AI drivers. I will be the first to state that most humans aren't equipped mentally to be really good drivers – IMO. If they were, my 300,000 miles of accident free driving wouldn't be remarkable. There have been times, once this winter in fact, when I have had to do the unnatural thing of accelerating through a hazard to avoid a collision when my body's "automatic" reaction favors hard braking. I challenge an autonomous vehicle and its engineering team to program that kind of possible reaction. Those unconventional responses, of which there are many in my history, happen too fast to think about and therefore why I earlier introduced intuition into this discussion. What I think would be awesome would be a BigBlue vs. Kasparov event applied to this arena: let's put a GoogleMobile in the Indy500. Ultimately, it's ignorant to claim that AI is superior to human intelligence at this stage of the game. Pump the brakes on the techo-chauvinism.

别忘了辅助司机。把责任推到他身上，我觉得不好意思，因为我可以想象自己在照看一辆自动驾驶汽车时也会完全分心。也就是说，这段视频具有误导性，因为它让观众觉得即使他们在关注，也不会做出反应。道路并不像优步视频中显示的那样黑暗——https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM-OsmGRh3k——当然，左边的摄像头可能在一定程度上提高了能见度，但这是一条被照亮的街道，而不是什么没有灯的乡村双车道高速公路。我想，优步对后备司机的培训强调了这是一项实验技术，需要非常专心地观察——也就是说，不要盯着你的手机。除此之外，是的，优步的技术灾难性地失败了——这正是我们期望自动驾驶汽车比人类司机表现更好的情况。如果要我打赌，我会说Lidar系统肯定看到了她，而缺陷在于优步的硬件或软件。尤其令人痛心的是，在我懵懵无知的情况下，沃尔沃的股票驾驶员辅助技术，在被Uber移除之前，会让车辆在碰撞前停下来，或至少让车辆减速。

“真的，这只是优步的系统的无能。你可以停下来。”不，你可以在那里停下来。事实上停止了。oops，除非您当然是具有深入，第一手知识的法医调查员，其操作系统，传感器阵列和安装在该车辆上的软件矩阵。而且，除非您是调查团队的一部分，否则已得出结论，“。。。。这只是优步的系统的无能。”来吧人！我希望美国工程师，技术人员，以及这场论坛的技术娴熟的观众更加重视。使用一些逻辑，使用某种原因，除了匆忙的冲动之外，你的大脑的某些部分才能急于判断。不要成为媒体和宣传的傻瓜。这不是一种行为融化了我们的文化吗？ Check yourself for Pete's sake. For the record, I'm not a fan of autonomous vehicles - period. Besides the fact that I really enjoy driving, I have driven ~300K miles over 36 years ACCIDENT FREE. So, I'll take on ANY current generation of autonomous vehicles, and possibly the next one as well. I challenge these readers to think more broadly. One thing to consider is this: The POTENTIAL safety and convenience of this technology is a collateral benefit at best. The real motivation behind autonomous vehicles is the centralized control of all technology for the ultimate aim of controlling the movement and activities of people. Do your homework. Think beyond CNN and MSNBC – OPEN YOUR MIND AND EYES - dig into UN Agenda 2030. (sure, roll your eyes all you want, but please do so after reading through that document and interpreting its vagaries. It explicitly details the effort to concentrate people into "population centers" and to use autonomous vehicles to limit access beyond urban boundaries. (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld) But I digress. . . You think there's nothing fishy in this incident and the "news" coming out of it? You don't see something strange about releasing the "official dash-came video" as being odd unto itself? Why would you take it at face value? (See THENEXTMAN's link below.) You don't think it's weird that the "news" reported that the investigative team concluded that no human would have been able to avoid hitting this jay-walking pedestrian. Bullshit. To your point KJLMC, this appears to be a system issue that indicates the technology is not ready for primetime. But instead of there being some voice of reason out there saying, "there appears to be more development time needed before this technology is unleashed on the public," the tech is absolved of responsibility because "no human could have prevented the accident." again: B.S. Tell me this: If the tech is supposed to be so awesome – and superior to human action – why is it held to such a low threshold as that of human capability? Why isn't the tech held to a higher standard that reflects how superior it is? I'll tell you why: because it's not superior. As for leaving one's lane being, "dangerous and illegal," what planet do you drive on? Lane changes – especially those to avoid danger or collisions – is an everyday practice for the rest of us. What cop is going to ticket you for an improper lane change because you swerved to avoid a cross-walking pedestrian?!? Your argument sound almost as moronic as Alin P. Lay off the armchair quarterbacking. You weren't there, and you don't appear to know squat about the system, its competencies, OR its incompetencies. But it does seem to be a system flaw or failure, I'll give you that – but that's not what the hyper-critical news is reporting. Am I the only one here who finds that suspicious?

妈的，你都49岁了还被欺负吗?(你有49岁吗，因为你很像我13岁的侄女。)或者也许你的真人娃娃今晚头疼。不管你的问题是什么，你输入的越多，你内心的喷子就会渗出越多。我的药吗? ?严重吗?你就这点能耐吗?对论坛的建议:尽量不要被其他清晰的回应所融化——即使你选择将它们视为无关紧要的。很明显，我读了这篇文章和所有随后的回复。我甚至引用了你的话来清楚地指出我在你上面的回复中反驳的是什么。 Just like I'm going to do again here: Regarding your item #1: Gnagy makes a pretty simple statement: he doesn't believe that the current state of this technology is sophisticated enough to be let loose on the streets. That's about this full of it. Yet you go on to extrapolate a whole series of assumptions. How do you know what gnagy is assuming? It's YOU who is doing all the assuming - and assuming quite a bit. In fact, you use the word assume in 3/3 sentences. That's a lot of assuming - on YOUR part. Mind-reading chess? What? That's such a poor analogy. There's no mind reading in driving or chess, but both depend on extrapolating probabilities given a set of possibilities. Mind reading?!? #2: What are you even talking about?!? Have you spent a minute behind the wheel yourself? Did daddy let you do more than steer the car around the driveway, Raymond? Of course the act of maneuvering a vehicle through traffic is extremely complex. That might explain why so many people die each year doing it, duh! "...are pretty easily resolved." What?!? Wake up, your Voltron doll is not driving you to school each day, junior. Maintain a safe distance, sure that's pretty straight forward tech - I'll give you that. But I love how you gloss over the complexity of "a basic understanding of the kinds of things that can go wrong." Yeah, sounds like somebody needs a basic understanding of the kinds of things that can go wrong. Dude, newsflash: this is where it gets REALLY complex, REALLY quickly. #3. I'm going to just skip this one altogether. I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you being facetious? "Software-driven vehicles will succeed not because they have the best human capabilities of the best empaths and deep thinkers. . ." Let's deconstruct this insanity: First of all, no vehicle, software driven or not, has human capabilities. The have hardware and software capabilities. They aren't empathic as they don't feel. They aren't deep thinkers - when's the last time a vehicle pondered its own consciousness or its place in the universe? In fact, they don't 'think' at all, they regurgitate routines that they are pre-programmed with. Your predilection for machine love is laughably unrealistic and your arguments non-coherent. But, you're still entitled to post such blather, I guess.