597
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] angelsomething@lemmy.one 106 points 1 year ago

Easy solution is to enforce a buddy system. For every black person walking alone at night must accompanied by a white person. /s

[-] RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Loved that show.

But you have to hire equally so some may get darker skinned buddies. Who will then need buddies.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Within 3 months we will employee every human on the planet...

[-] Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

Money over people. Thats what it says right there on the lobby floor. It just looks more heroic in latin.

[-] Vengefu1Tuna@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

I think this is one of my favorite TV episodes ever. Better Off Ted deserved better.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago

LiDAR doesn’t see skin color or age. Radar doesn’t either. Infra-red doesn’t either.

[-] drz@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 year ago

LiDAR, radar and infra-red may still perform worse on children due to children being smaller and therefore there would be fewer contact points from the LiDAR reflection.

I work in a self driving R&D lab.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] quirk_eclair78@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

That's a fair observation! LiDAR, radar, and infra-red systems might not directly detect skin color or age, but the point being made in the article is that there are challenges when it comes to accurately detecting darker-skinned pedestrians and children. It seems that the bias could stem from the data used to train these AI systems, which may not have enough diverse representation.

[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

The main issue, as someone else pointed out as well, is in image detection systems only, which is what this article is primarily discussing. Lidar does have its own drawbacks, however. I wouldn't be surprised if those systems would still not detect children as reliably. Skin color wouldn't definitely be a consideration for it, though, as that's not really how that tech works.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Rinox@feddit.it 62 points 1 year ago

Isn't that true for humans as well? I know I find it harder to see children due to the small size and dark skinned people at night due to, you know, low contrast (especially if they are wearing dark clothes).

Human vision be racist and ageist

Ps: but yes, please do improve the algorithms

[-] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 7 points 1 year ago

Part of the children problem is distinguishing between 'small' and 'far away'. Humans seem reasonably good at it, but from what I've seen AIs aren't there yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tonytins@pawb.social 42 points 1 year ago

Maybe if we just, I dunno, funded more mass transit and made it more accessible? Hell, trains are way better at being automated than any single car.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

The trains in California are trash. I'd love to see good ones, but this isn't even a thought in the heads of those who run things.

Dreaming is nice... But reality sucks, and we need to deal with it. Self driving cars are a wonderful answer, but Tesla, is fucking it up for everyone.

[-] fresh@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago

Strongly disagree. Trains are nice everywhere in the world. There’s no reason they can’t be nice in the US. Cars are trash. Strip malls are trash. Giant parking lots are trash. The sky high cost of cars is trash. The environmental impact of cars is trash. The danger of cars is trash. Car centric urban planning is trash.

Self-driving cars are safer… than the most dangerous thing ever. But because cars are inherently so dangerous, they are still more dangerous than just about any other mode of transportation.

Dreaming is nice, but that’s all self-driving cars are right now. I don’t see why we don’t have better dreams.

[-] bisq@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

A fellow fuckcars fan. Also important to remember that the US has been systematically lobbied to make public transport, trains, etc way worse.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] zephyreks@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

Trains in California suck because of government dysfunction across all levels. At the municipal level, you can't build shit because every city is actually an agglomeration of hundreds of tiny municipalities that all squabble with each other. At the regional level, you get NIMBYism that doesn't want silly things like trains knocking down property values... And these people have a voice, because democracy I guess (despite there being a far larger group of people that would love to have trains). At the state level, you have complete funding mismanagement and project management malfeasance that makes projects both incredibly expensive and developed with no forethought whatsoever (Caltrain has how many at-grade crossings, again?).

This isn't a train problem, it's a problem with your piss-poor government. At least crime is down, right?

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That works in a city, it's not viable to have mass transit in every place, you still need cars for total areas

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] OrdinaryAlien@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

DRIVERLESS CARS: We killed them. We killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the pedestmen, but the pedestwomen and the pedestchildren, too. We slaughtered them like animals. We hate them!

[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Worse than humans?!

I find that very hard to believe.

We consider it the cost of doing business, but self-driving cars have an obscenely low bar to surpass us in terms of safety. The biggest hurdle it has to climb is accounting for irrational human drivers and other irrational humans diving into traffic that even the rare decent human driver can't always account for.

American human drivers kill more people than 10 9/11s worth of people every year. Id rather modernizing and automating our roadways would be a moonshot national endeavor, but we don't do that here anymore, so we complain when the incompetent, narcissistic asshole who claimed the project for private profit turned out to be an incompetent, narcissistic asshole.

The tech is inevitable, there are no physics or computational power limitations standing in our way to achieve it, we just lack the will to be a society (that means funding stuff together through taxation) and do it.

Let's just trust another billionaire do it for us and act in the best interests of society though, that's been working just gangbusters, hasn't it?

[-] pendingdeletion@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Not necessarily worse than humans, no, just worse than it can detect light skinned and tall people.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] 666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't good driverless cars use radars or lidars or whatever? Seems like the biggest issue here is that darker skin tones are harder for cameras to see

[-] MSids@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tesla removed the LiDAR from their cars, a step backwards if you ask me.

Edit: Sorry RADAR not LiDAR.

[-] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

They removed the radars, they've never used LiDAR as Elon considered it "a fool's errand", which translates to "too expensive to put in my penny pinched economy cars". Also worth noting that they took the radars out purely to keep production and the stock price up, despite them knowing well in advance performance was going to take a massive hit without it. They just don't give a shit, and a few pedestrian deaths are 100% worth it to Elon with all the money he made from the insane value spike of the stock during COVID. They were the one automaker who maintained production because they just randomly swapped in whatever random parts they could find, instead of anything properly tested or validated, rather than suck it up for a bad quarter or two like everyone else.

[-] dx1@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Seems like Tesla is really not going to be the market leader on this. IDK if anytime else caught those videos by the self driving tech expert going through all the ways Tesla is bullshitting about it.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago

Hey, they'll have full self driving tech next year!

Source: Elon Musk, every year, for like the last ten years.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

This has been the case with pretty much every single piece of computer-vision software to ever exist....

Darker individuals blend into dark backgrounds better than lighter skinned individuals. Dark backgrounds are more common that light ones, ie; the absence of sufficient light is more common than 24/7 well-lit environments.

Obviously computer vision will struggle more with darker individuals.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago
  1. No it's because they train AI with pictures of white adults.

  2. It literally wouldn't matter for lidar, but Tesla uses visual cameras to save money and that weighs down everyone else's metrics.

Lumping lidar cars with Tesla makes no sense

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Self driving cars are republicans?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RobotToaster@infosec.pub 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The study only used images and the image recognition system, so this will only be accurate for self driving systems that operate purely on image recognition. The only one that does that currently is Tesla AFAIK.

[-] camillaSinensis@reddthat.com 9 points 1 year ago

I'd assume that's either due to bias in the training set, or poor design choices. The former is already a big problem in facial recognition, and can't really be fixed unless we update datasets. With the latter, this could be using things like visible light for classification, where the contrast between target and background won't necessarily be the same for all skin tones and times os day. Cars aren't limited by DNA to only grow a specific type of eye, and you can still create training data from things like infrared or LIDAR. In either case though, it goes to show how important it is to test for bias in datasets and deal with it before actually deploying anything...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 8 points 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

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

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago
[-] Haquer@lemmy.today 7 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fresh@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Conant and Ashby’s good regulator theorem in cybernetics says, “Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system.”

The AI needs an accurate model of a human to predict how humans move. Predicting the path of a human is different than predicting the path of other objects. Humans can stand totally motionless, pivot, run across the street at a red light, suddenly stop, fall over from a heart attack, be curled up or splayed out drunk, slip backwards on some ice, etc. And it would be computationally costly, inaccurate, and pointless to model non-humans in these ways.

I also think trolley problem considerations come into play, but more like normativity in general. The consequences of driving quickly amongst humans is higher than amongst human height trees. I don’t mind if a car drives at a normal speed on a tree lined street, but it should slow down on a street lined with playing children who could jump out at anytime.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Aopen@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago

Im not expert, but perhaps thermal camera + lidar sensor could help.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jhoward@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

Probably could have stopped that headline at the third word.

[-] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Ya know, I am not surprised that even self driving cars somehow ended up with the case of accidental racism and wanting to murder children. Even though this is a serious issue, it's still kinda funny in a messed up way.

[-] ChromeSkull@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

A single flir camera would help massively. They don't care about colour or height. Only temperature.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
597 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58160 readers
3239 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS