[HN Gopher] Mitsubishi plans to include scene-aware interaction ...
___________________________________________________________________
Mitsubishi plans to include scene-aware interaction in cars
Author : pseudolus
Score : 75 points
Date : 2022-02-26 13:36 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| bob1029 wrote:
| > can explain itself
|
| I was hoping for some new take on the AI/ML blackbox approach
| that could allow for us to trace a vehicle decision back to
| deterministic rules. Ya know, something like SQL.
|
| This is still interesting on the UX side of the house though. A
| lot of people navigate better this way. It might actually reduce
| cognitive load and accidents by providing information in a more
| digestible format.
| black_13 wrote:
| uKVZe85V wrote:
| > A conventional navigation system would tell the driver to turn
| right in 100 meters this is not very informative since drivers
| may not have an accurate sense of distance.
|
| So, this is for the subpopulation of car drivers that have no
| accurate sense of distance? Mmh, okay.
|
| > - follow the silver car to turn left
|
| > - I can't see it
|
| Not surprising. Colors are somewhat ambiguous, cultural and
| subjective. Greyish ("silver") is a very common color for a car.
| At this moment there were several car matching that description.
|
| So, using color, at least in this case, is not accurate.
|
| At least, with a distance, the information is somewhat well-
| defined.
|
| > - okay follow the silver car in the leftmost lane
|
| That's _another_ silver car.
|
| Wait, what's the benefit of mentioning that car, compared to
| saying "join the leftmost lane and follow it to turn left"? Or
| simply, "turn left".
|
| Do they mean it is for drivers that can follow another car but
| not painted lanes?
|
| What happens in low traffic when there's no other car to follow?
|
| > turn left at the building with a billboard
|
| There are several buildings with a billboard. One at around 100
| meters, one at around 300 meters.
|
| So, mentioning "a building with a billboard", at least in this
| case, is not accurate.
|
| At least, with a distance, the information is somewhat well-
| defined.
|
| > recent breakthroughs in object detection and recognition
| semantic segmentation motion analysis of dynamic objects and
| natural language processing technologies our system also makes
| use of high precision maps
|
| "recent buzzword in buzzword and buzzword buzzword buzzword
| buzzword of buzzword and buzzword buzzword our system also makes
| use of buzzword".
|
| > surveillance systems that understand complex scenes and
| interpret them for humans
|
| Ah, this may be the real deal. No, thanks.
| projektfu wrote:
| I guess I must be an idiot. I frequently can't tell what turn
| the navigation system expects me to take and I am never sure if
| it's really 100ft or more-or-less 100ft, maybe 60, maybe 140.
| When the navigator tells me I can be in the leftmost 3 lanes
| for the turn, I usually can't see whether I should be ready to
| turn left or right. If I can't see the turn, because there is a
| truck in my way, I will often miss it. But I must be in a
| subpopulation that doesn't need any support because we're so
| rare.
| uKVZe85V wrote:
| You seem irritated. Sorry if you think I caused this.
|
| I also happen to sometimes miss guidance directions (happened
| a few days ago). Still, I doubt ambiguously referring to
| environmental features is an actual progress.
|
| My feeling is that in both current and projected systems, the
| driver will need some experience to figure out the ambiguity.
|
| I also anticipate cases where the AI will mislabel an object
| and ask to turn left at the X while there's clearly no X, or
| maybe actually an X but further away, causing misguidance.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > You seem irritated. Sorry if you think I caused this.
|
| Not that I think you need to apologize, but if-pologies are
| worse than nothing. They irritate people more.
| ajross wrote:
| There doesn't seem to be any autonomy technology described. This
| is an article submitted by Mitsubishi about their work with AI-
| driven driver direction annunciation. Which sounds cool, but it's
| not "self-driving" at all. Which makes me question how much of
| this is actually showing off something interesting and how much
| is just marketing.
| efitz wrote:
| I noticed that as well- "where's the bit about self-driving"?
| scoot wrote:
| The title says "self driving", but the article is about a sat-nav
| dang wrote:
| We've replaced the article's baity title with representative
| language from the article.
| p1esk wrote:
| Here's a video that demonstrates what they built:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t0izXoT_Aoc
| efitz wrote:
| So the gist of the article is that instead of saying "in five
| hundred feet, turn right", they've built a nav system that can
| say things like "follow the black car that is turning right at
| the tree".
|
| Sounds better than what we have now, which is dumb systems that
| often repeat stuff unnecessarily and annoyingly: "In a quarter
| mile, turn right" "In 500 feet, turn right" "Turn right"
|
| I want it to pick one and shut up unless I'm about to miss the
| turn: "Turn right at the next light" "Are you going to turn or
| what?"
|
| This would be less annoying and also reduce the amount of
| assistance my wife feels compelled to provide.
|
| Ed: s/nab/nav/g
| newman8r wrote:
| > dumb systems that often repeat stuff unnecessarily and
| annoyingly
|
| yes. the apple navigation app can stop saying "proceed to the
| route" after 40 or 50 consecutive utterances - 100 is just
| excessive. It can get annoying during a road trip when you want
| to randomly pull off to take a look at something.
| dataflow wrote:
| > dumb systems that often repeat stuff unnecessarily and
| annoyingly: "In a quarter mile, turn right" "In 500 feet, turn
| right" "Turn right"
|
| I actually find these super helpful. They're redundant in some
| cases, but if you ever fail to hear what they say the first
| time for whatever reason, or if there are multiple streets
| close to each other, the redundancy is incredibly helpful.
| raylad wrote:
| Apple's Maps navigation already does something like this. I
| much prefer it to any other that I've tried.
|
| No more "500 feet". Instead it says things like:
|
| "Go through this light, and at the next one, turn right."
|
| Not sure if its routes are always the best but I tend to pick
| it anyway because of the more intelligible instructions.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| My problem with Apple Maps is in the visual presentation.
| It's like it changes scale and animation speed as I get
| closer to the turn, which throws off my mental calibration of
| map speed and distance to actual, and I end up missing a lot
| of turns because I am closer than I judged based on what's
| showing on the map. I don't seem to have this problem with
| Google Maps, for whatever reason, but maybe it's just because
| I mostly use Google and that's what I'm used to.
| Tagbert wrote:
| On a related note, I would like to be able to tell the nav
| systems to shut up about directions until I get close to the
| destination. I don't need to know how to get out of my
| driveway, I only need to know which exit to take on the freeway
| and what building it is on that street.
|
| Maybe if there were just a voice command: "Hey, Widget, mute
| nav for 15 minutes."
| alistairSH wrote:
| Or just save a "known roads zone" setting - drag a circle out
| from your house/office/etc and that's it.
| code_duck wrote:
| I pretty much hate the robot voice telling me what to do. Some
| people I know don't seem to be able to navigate without it. I
| grew up with paper maps, and the biggest advantage of GPS maps
| for me is being able to find out where I am, and then figure
| out where I need to turn to get where I need to go. Back in the
| day, it used to be finding streets in the index and then
| looking them up on the map grid. My own navigation works like
| "OK, continue down the street, I'm going to cross this one
| street, and then take a right at the next major intersection,
| which is named [whatever]".
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > Sounds better than what we have now, which is dumb systems
| that often repeat stuff unnecessarily and annoyingly: "In a
| quarter mile, turn right" "In 500 feet, turn right" "Turn
| right"
|
| Apple maps says things like "at the next traffic light, turn
| right onto Crankyoldman Street." It's been a while since I used
| Google Maps.
|
| You can just turn off prompts entirely. Between CarPlay /
| Android Auto or just having your phone in a cradle relatively
| high-up on your dash, voice prompts aren't necessary if they're
| annoying you that much.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| I always wanted a countdown timer/graphic when approaching a
| turn, indicating seconds: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, turn!
|
| It's harder to reason about 0.2 mi, 700 ft, 400 ft, 250 ft, esp
| when streets are close together, or at different approach
| speeds.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| You speed can change dramatically. A timer makes less sense
| than showing distance.
| hammock wrote:
| >I want it to pick one and shut up unless I'm about to miss the
| turn: "Turn right at the next light" "Are you going to turn or
| what?"
|
| Easy solution here would be to have some feedback mechanism for
| the nav. Surprised it doesn't exist already. I miss what the
| nav says about half the time, because I'm paying attention to
| other things. But if i could say "ok, got it" or press a button
| that says "ok, got it" the first time she gives a new
| direction, that would shut up her reminders, that seems ideal.
| xahrepap wrote:
| Also, I want to be able to specify areas I'm familiar with
| somehow. So instead of it telling me turn by turn how to
| leave my neighborhood, for example, it just says "leave the
| neighborhood going east". Then it could say "you want to be
| going north on I-whatever, you'll end up North of CITY." And
| then it shuts up until I've gone past CITY on I-whatever.
| efitz wrote:
| This is an awesome idea.
| robszumski wrote:
| This seems like such an easy win to me. Oh this person has
| driven the beginning of this route 500 times, just tell
| them to get on the interstate heading downtown.
|
| Plus just turn the "turn in 200ft" to "turn in two blocks".
| None of this needs fancy sensors.
| agentwiggles wrote:
| I always want this when I'm close to home. I know where I
| am once I'm within a mile or so of my house, shut the hell
| up and let me drive. (Usually, I just stop navigation once
| I'm on a familiar highway, but it would be nice if I didn't
| have to manage it.)
|
| Similarly, I'd like to be able to say something like "get
| me to I-71 North" or similar and have it take me to the
| nearest exit for that direction.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Apple Maps does actually provide directions like "go through
| this traffic light" and "at the stop sign, turn left". It's
| significantly better than Google.
| hammock wrote:
| Google Maps does this too, using landmarks that are already
| on the map. They say "turn left at the Exxon" and "turn
| right after the pet store."
| sneak wrote:
| I always assume those are just paid placement (ads), not
| any more useful to me as a driver than "turn right at the
| next light".
|
| It's the main reason I won't use Google Maps any longer.
| mrfusion wrote:
| That's an amazing idea and simple! I miss directions all the
| time too.
| sjg007 wrote:
| Great, just what I want, a back seat driver.
| anxrn wrote:
| This article is written by Mitsubishi engineers but in the style
| of a news report with a sensationalized headline ("At last" ...).
| I'm noticing more of these - seems like a new (?) marketing
| trend. Nothing wrong with that objective, but does throw me off -
| I typically expect hard tech from the Spectrum.
| lowwave wrote:
| >I typically expect hard tech from the Spectrum Maybe this one
| is bit more to your interest:
|
| https://yewtu.be/watch?v=JamDa-qNjPI
| rexpop wrote:
| > "Suits make a corporate comeback," says the New York Times.
| Why does this sound familiar? Maybe because the suit was also
| back in February, September 2004, June 2004, March 2004,
| September 2003, November 2002, April 2002, and February 2002.
|
| > Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back?
| Because PR firms tell them to.
|
| http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| beebeepka wrote:
| Interesting. A combination of HUD and voice help might work
| better than what we have now. Of course, a good HUD would likely
| be ultimately better but much harder to implement
| EarthIsHome wrote:
| From the video:
|
| > Communication between humans and machines is hindered by a lack
| of shared awareness.
|
| Yeah... by the fact that humans aren't aware that AI is just a
| bunch of 1s and 0s and not _actually_ aware. There 's no
| intelligence here.
|
| > Scene understanding
|
| ... it cannot understand. It can only match. It does not
| understand in the way humans understand.
| adamisom wrote:
| Beware selective reductionism! If you want to be reductionist,
| you can do that about anything. Humans are ultimately quarks,
| there's no free will, and we have imperatives and rules
| governing our behavior on every scale. There's more nuanced
| discussion to be had but I think it should start with 'and why
| doesn't that reductionism also apply to humans (with a slight
| twist)?'
| judge2020 wrote:
| > It does not understand in the way humans understand.
|
| And?
|
| If it can match to a point where it knows exactly what
| everything is, and presumably is capable of (or eventually will
| be able to) making decisions based on that information well
| enough to obey the rules of the road, then it doesn't really
| matter if it's using trillions of simple logic gates or a human
| brain.
| dbspin wrote:
| That's not @earthishome's point.
|
| Human understanding enables inference. Say your full self
| driving car is driving down the freeway and an enormous
| explosion / forest fire / volcano erupts in the distance,
| it'll blissfully drive towards the disaster - because it has
| no comprehension of what the orange sky, shaking ground,
| fleeing people imply.
|
| This is a extreme example but the more we learn about driving
| the more we realise our ability to do it is based on
| inference not only about the world, but about the intentions
| of other drivers.
|
| There's no 'decision' being made by a self driving car - it's
| matching its predefined set of visual inputs to a set of
| behaviours. It can never scale to adapt to the unknown - even
| in principle.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Eventually the cars will indeed be good about determining
| the intentions of other drivers, not by any sort of body
| language we might be able to instinctively infer, but by
| learning what people often do and playing out those
| scenarios, ensuring it can handle either outcome. We aren't
| looking for 'perfect', even in the advent of human lives
| being at risk when going 80 mph on the freeway, it just
| needs to handle events with an outcome of an order of
| magnitude fewer incidents/deaths than the current paradigm
| of human drivers.
|
| > It can never scale to adapt to the unknown - even in
| principle.
|
| But the human will be able to fill in for the inference
| cars don't have. Even if we get to level 5 where there's no
| steering wheel, the human can still control the car's
| destination and what sort of operation modes the car is in;
| if there is some event and full-scale panic ensues, the AI
| driver isn't going to hit people in the street - either the
| human can instruct it to turn around, or they can get out
| of the car, since even now it's not really safe try to
| weave between humans in the street to reach your
| destination.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > AI is just a bunch of 1s and 0s and not actually aware.
| There's no intelligence here.
|
| And the human brain is just a bundle of electrical signals.
| Why's that any different?
| bangkoksbest wrote:
| More is different. Reductionism does not actually explain
| qualitative behavior.
| [deleted]
| hprotagonist wrote:
| > And the human brain is just a bundle of electrical signals.
|
| the more we look the more we find that this is not the case.
| and i don't have to invoke any philosophy here, just remind
| you that neurotransmitter modulation and glial cells exist.
| kylevedder wrote:
| Are you saying neurotransmitter modulation and glial cells
| cannot be represented by electrical signals?
|
| Honestly, the root of all this is whether you were trying
| to claim that the brain is doing super-Turing computation
| or not. Either
|
| 1) it's not, then you can't tell me Turing machines cannot
| do the same computation (and by extension neural nets can
| approximate it)
|
| 2) it is, then prove it and congratulations you have made a
| extraordinarily important and fundamental step forward in
| computer science.
|
| My money is on 1.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| > Are you saying neurotransmitter modulation and glial
| cells cannot be represented by electrical signals?
|
| Certainly neither of them are action potentials, which
| are usually the (exclusive and therefore imo incomplete)
| basis for the mental model of people who claim things
| like "the brain is just electrical signals." No. It's
| not. It's a vastly more complicated system of organ(s)
| than that even if you're willing to draw a line in the
| sand between brain and environment -- and that's no easy
| feat itself!
| kylevedder wrote:
| At the end of the day, saying "it's just electrical
| signals" is a crude way of saying "it's using a model of
| computation that we understand and can replicate". The
| first claim may not be strictly true, but it seems you're
| implying second one is.
|
| This is relevant because the universal function
| approximaters we are training everyday are capable of
| representing this computational model, undermining the
| argument that there is somehow a difference between the
| model of computation done in the brain and the
| computation done by neural networks.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| > At the end of the day, saying "it's just electrical
| signals" is a crude way of saying "it's using a model of
| computation that we understand and can replicate".
|
| oh. well, that's just a naive embrace of the andy grove
| fallacy.
|
| as of this moment, the brain's computational model (and
| if there is one, and if so how many) is neither well
| understood nor replicable.
|
| it's almost a category error to describe the process as
| "reverse engineering", but even if that's an appropriate
| mental model, it turns out that reverse engineering an
| evolved system that's taken 4.5 billion years and has had
| no human design additions at all has very little in
| common with any similar approach you could take in, say,
| inspecting the trained weights of a neural network to
| back out what's going on.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > oh. well, that's just a naive embrace of the andy grove
| fallacy.
|
| No it's not. That's about feasibility, and the comment
| was not about feasibility. It was about turing vs. super-
| turing.
|
| Go ahead and assume the reverse engineers get 4.5
| trillion years or something. That wasn't the point of the
| " _actually_ aware " rebuttal.
| lkschubert8 wrote:
| This is the core of the materialism vs dualism debate.
| anonymousab wrote:
| > Why's that any different?
|
| Consciousness, sentience and sapience. Which is to say, that
| is indeed the multitrillion dollar question.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| But what makes you think binary vs analog is the key
| difference?
| Cerium wrote:
| To date, all systems composed of ones and zeros are not
| generally intelligent.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Is that why they're not intelligent? Or an entirely
| unrelated factor? Would anything change if you
| implemented exactly the same algorithms on a decimal
| computer instead? I don't think it would.
| Cerium wrote:
| No, the ones and zeros are irrelevant, but like "leaves
| of three, let it be" you won't accidentally identify
| something as intelligent, just like you won't
| accidentally identify a plant as safe to touch. In both
| cases, the intelligence or the urushiol allergy are
| coincidal with the rule of thumb.
| kylevedder wrote:
| >Consciousness
|
| What makes something conscious?
|
| Follow up: is that answer well-defined (it's not using
| other nebulous concepts to avoid having to rigorously
| define it), and does it accept all of the things you think
| should be called "conscious" and reject all of the things
| you think should not be?
| netsharc wrote:
| Now I want a parking sensor with the cockpit voice that reads out
| numbers as you land "One hundred. Fifty. Forty. Thirty. Twenty.
| Retard, retard!"
| fouc wrote:
| I think you've nailed the best possible UX
| daverol wrote:
| I had a chatty passenger like this in my car once - never again!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-26 23:01 UTC)