Wapo journalist verifies that robotaxis fail to stop for pedestrians in marked crosswalk 7 out of 10 times. Waymo admitted that it follows “social norms” rather than laws.
The reason is likely to compete with Uber, 🤦
Wapo article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/12/30/waymo-pedestrians-robotaxi-crosswalks/
Cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113746178244368036
People, and especially journalists, need to get this idea of robots as perfectly logical computer code out of their heads. These aren’t Asimov’s robots we’re dealing with. Journalists still cling to the idea that all computers are hard-coded. You still sometimes see people navel-gazing on self-driving cars, working the trolley problem. “Should a car veer into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting a child crossing the road?” The authors imagine that the creators of these machines hand-code every scenario, like a long series of if statements.
But that’s just not how these things are made. They are not programmed; they are trained. In the case of self-driving cars, they are simply given a bunch of video footage and radar records, and the accompanying driver inputs in response to those conditions. Then they try to map the radar and camera inputs to whatever the human drivers did. And they train the AI to do that.
This behavior isn’t at all surprising. Self-driving cars, like any similar AI system, are not hard coded, coldly logical machines. They are trained off us, off our responses, and they exhibit all of the mistakes and errors we make. The reason waymo cars don’t stop at crosswalks is because human drivers don’t stop at crosswalks. The machine is simply copying us.
All of which takes you back to the headline, “Waymo trains its cars to not stop at crosswalks”. The company controls the input, it needs to be responsible for the results.
Some of these self driving car companies have successfully lobbied to stop citys from ticketing their vehicles for traffic infractions. Here they are stating these cars are so much better than human drivers, yet they won’t stand behind that statement instead they are demanding special rules for themselves and no consequences.
I think the reason non-tech people find this so difficult to comprehend is the poor understanding of what problems are easy for (classically programmed) computers to solve versus ones that are hard.
if ( person_at_crossing ) then { stop }
To the layperson it makes sense that self-driving cars should be programmed this way. Aftter all, this is a trivial problem for a human to solve. Just look, and if there is a person you stop. Easy peasy.
But for a computer, how do you know? What is a ‘person’? What is a ‘crossing’? How do we know if the person is ‘at/on’ the crossing as opposed to simply near it or passing by?
To me it’s this disconnect between the common understanding of computer capability and the reality that causes the misconception.
I think you could liken it to training a young driver who doesn’t share a language with you. You can demonstrate the behavior you want once or twice, but unless all of the observations demonstrate the behavior you want, you can’t say “yes, we specifically told it to do that”
But for a computer, how do you know? What is a ‘person’? What is a ‘crossing’? How do we know if the person is ‘at/on’ the crossing as opposed to simply near it or passing by?
Most walkways are marked. The vehicle is able to identify obstructions in the road and things on the side of the road that are moving towards the road just like cross street traffic.
If (thing) is crossing the street then stop. If (thing) is stationary near a marked crosswalk, stop and go if they don’t move in (x) seconds. If they don’t move in a reasonable amount of time, then go.
You know, the same way people are supposed to handle the same situation.
Most crosswalks in the US are not marked, and in all places I’m familiar with vehicles must stop or yield to pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks.
At unmarked crosswalks and marked but uncontrolled crosswalks we have to handle the situation with social cues about which direction the pedestrian wants to cross the street/road/highway and if they will feel safer crossing the road after a vehicle has passed than before (almost always for homeless pedestrians and frequently for pedestrians in moderate traffic).
If waymo can’t figure out if something intends or is likely to enter the highway they can’t drive a car. Those can be people at crosswalks, people crossing at places other than crosswalks, blind pedestrians crossing anywhere, deaf and blind pedestrians crossing even at controlled intersections, kids or wildlife or livestock running toward the road, etc.
Whether you call in it programming or training, the designers still designed a car that doesn’t obey traffic laws.
People need to get it out of their heads that AI is some kind of magical monkey-see-monkey-do. AI isn’t magic, it’s just a statistical model. Garbage in = Garbage out. If the machine fails because it’s only copying us, that’s not the machine’s fault, not AI’s fault, not our fault, it’s the programmer’s fault. It’s fundamentally no different, had they designed a complicated set of logical rules to follow. Training a statistical model is programming.
You’re whole “explanation” sounds like a tech-bro capitalist news conference sound bite released by a corporation to avoid guilt for running down a child in a crosswalk.
It’s not apologeia. It’s illustrating the foundational limits of the technology. And it’s why I’m skeptical of most machine learning systems. You’re right that it’s a statistical model. But what people miss is that these models are black boxes. That is the crucial distinction between programming and training that I’m trying to get at. Imagine being handed a 10 million x 10 million matrix of real numbers and being told, “here change this so it always stops at crosswalks.” It isn’t just some line of code that can be edited.
The distinction between training and programming is absolutely critical here. You cannot hand waive away that distinction. These models are trained like we train animals. They aren’t taught through hard coded rules.
And that is a fundamental limit of the technology. We don’t know how to program a computer how to drive a car. Instead we only know how to make a computer mimic human driving behavior. And that means the computer can ultimately never peform better than an attentive sober human with some increases reaction time and visibility. But if there is any common errors that humans frequently make, then it will be duplicated in the machine.
It’s obvious now that you literally don’t have any idea how programming or machine learning works, thus you think no one else does either. It is absolutely not some “black box” where the magic happens. That attitude (combined with your oddly misplaced condescension) is toxic and honestly kind of offensive. You can’t hand waive away responsibility like this when doing any kind of engineering. That’s like first day ethics-101 shit.
Training self driving cars that way would be irresponsible, because it would behave unpredictably and could be really dangerous. In reality, self driving cars use AI for only some tasks for which it is really good at like object recognition (e.g. recognizing traffic signs, pedestrians and other vehicles). The car uses all this data to build a map of its surroundings and tries to predict what the other participants are going to do. Then, it decides whether it’s safe to move the vehicle, and the path it should take. All these things can be done algorithmically, AI is only necessary for object recognition.
In cases such as this, just follow the money to find the incentives. Waymo wants to maximize their profits. This means maximizing how many customers they can serve as well as minimizing driving time to save on gas. How do you do that? Program their cars to be a bit more aggressive: don’t stop on yellow, don’t stop at crosswalks except to avoid a collision, drive slightly over the speed limit. And of course, lobby the shit out of every politician to pass laws allowing them to get away with breaking these rules.
According to some cursory research (read: Google), obstacle avoidance uses ML to identify objects, and uses those identities to predict their behavior. That stage leaves room for the same unpredictability, doesn’t it? Say you only have 51% confidence that a “thing” is a pedestrian walking a bike, 49% that it’s a bike on the move. The former has right of way and the latter doesn’t. Or even 70/30. 90/10.
There’s some level where you have to set the confidence threshold to choose a course of action and you’ll be subject to some ML-derived unpredictability as confidence fluctuates around it… right?
In such situations, the car should take the safest action and assume it’s a pedestrian.
I’m sure a strong legal case can be made here.
An individual driver breaking the law is bad enough but the legal system can be “flexible” because it’s hard to enforce the law against a generalized (bad) social norm and then each individual law breaker can argue an individual case etc.
But a company systematically breaking the law on purpose is different. Scale here matters. There are no individualized circumstances and no crying at a judge that the fine will put this single mother in a position to not pay rent this month. This is systematic and premeditated. Inexcusable in every way.
Like, a single cook forgetting to wash hands once after going to the bathroom is gross but a franchise chain building a business model around adding small quantities of poop in food is insupportable.
I really want to agree, but conservative Florida ruled that people don’t have the right to clean water so I doubt the conservative Supreme Court will think we have the right to safe crosswalks
I am not intimately familiar with your country’s legal conventions, but there is already a law (pedestrians having priority in crosswalks) that is being broken here, right?
Driving laws are broken by humam drivers every day. The speed limit is secretly +15, rolling stops on stop signs is standard, many treat a right turn on red as a yield instead. Its so common and normalized that actually enforcing all the driving laws now would take a massive increase in the amount of police doing traffic control on the road assissted with cameras throughout the city to help with speeding and running red lights.
The truth is, North America has no interest in making their roads safer, you can see that in the way they design them. Vehicle speed and throughput above all else. North America has had increasing pedestrian deaths over the last several years, the rest of the developed world has decreasing pedestrian deaths.
I remember seeing a video from inside a waymo waiting to make a left against traffic.
It turned the wheel before moving, in anticipation of the turn. Which is normal for most drivers I see on the road.
It’s also the exact opposite of what you should do for safety and legality.
Keep the wheel straight until you’re ready to move, turning the wheel before the turn means that if someone rear ends you, you get pushed into traffic, not along your current lane.
It’s the social norm, not the proper move.
I was involved in a crash many years ago where this resulted in the car in front of us getting pushed into an oncoming car. We were stopped behind a car indicating to turn, hit from behind by a bus (going quite fast), pushed hard into the car in front and they ended up getting smashed from behind and in front.
Don’t turn your wheel until you’re ready to move, folks.
I haven’t driven in a bit, so thank you for that reminder. It’s scary that people instinctively do that.
The recent Not Just Bike video about self driving cars is really good about this subject, very dystopic
And again… If I break the law, I get a large fine or go to jail. If companies break the law, they at worst will get a small fine
Why does this disconnect exist?
Am I so crazy to demand that companies are not only treated the same, but held to a higher standard? I don’t stop ar a zebra, that is me breaking the law once. Waymo programming their cars noy to do that is multiple violations per day, every day. Its a company deciding they’re above the law because they want more money. Its a company deciding to risk the lives of others to earn more money.
For me, all managers and engineers that signed off on this and worked on this should he jailed, the company should be restricted from doing business for a month, and required to immediately ensure all laws are followed or else…
This is the only way we get companies to follow the rules.
Instead though, we just ask compi to treat laws as suggestions, sometimes requiring small payments if they cross the line too far.
Funny that you don’t mention company owners or directors who are supposed to oversee what happens, in practice are the people putting pressure to make that happen, and are the ones liable in front of the law.
