this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
529 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

73287 readers
3645 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
529
Driverless cars worse at detecting children and darker-skinned pedestrians say scientists (www.kcl.ac.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Driverless cars worse at detecting children and darker-skinned pedestrians say scientists::Researchers call for tighter regulations following major age and race-based discrepancies in AI autonomous systems.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Weird question, but why does a car need to know if it's a person or not? Like regardless of if it's a person or a car or a pole, maybe don't drive into it?

Is it about predicting whether it's going to move into your path? Well can't you just just LIDAR to detect an object moving and predict the path, why does it matter if it's a person?

Is it about trolley probleming situations so it picks a pole instead of a person if it can't avoid a crash?

[–] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Im guessing it can’t detect them as objects at all, not that it can’t classify them as humans.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That seems like the car is relying way too much on video to detect surroundings...

[–] Haquer@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sooo.... like the Tesla?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago

Haha yes, but from the article I got the impression it was across all tested brands. Tesla is being called out at the moment for not having the appropriate hardware that other brands are using (e.g. LIDAR).

[–] RobotToaster 5 points 2 years ago

Cameras and image recognition are cheaper than LIDAR/RADAR, so Tesla uses it exclusively.

[–] duffman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They need to safely ignore shadows, oil stains on the road, just because there's contrast on an image doesn't mean it's an object.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure but why on earth are we relying on cameras to drive cars? Many modern cars have radar, which is far more reliable.

[–] duffman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Natural vision is awesome, it works for billions of humans. We just have nothing close to what the human eyes and brain offers in terms of tech in that spectrum.

I think it needs to be a combination of sensors since radar sucks in the rain/snow/fog.