Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Waymo

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
You were the one who came up with the idea Waymo ULT is great. I gave a counter example.

Its for you to prove, their ULT is great, since you made the original claim. Its not for me to disprove you and you are not right until disproven ;)

Waymo does tens of thousands of ULTs with no mistake for every ULT where they do make a mistake. And they have never had an accident in a ULT. I am not making these numbers up. They come from Waymo's own statistics. Waymo has done over 7M driverless miles, hundreds of thousands of successful ULTs. That is why they are great at ULT.
 
Last edited:
Ten in a row at Cult's ULT ?

It’s not just about collision - it’s about doing it "right". Even when you make a mistake there may not be collision (as in that case) since the other guy will take preventive action.
The only data we have is one bad turn and collision reports. Ultimately collisions are what matters once you have a large enough sample size.
There are UPLs way more challenging than Chuck’s in Los Angeles. Though I suspect Waymo will avoid them.
 
Its not just about collision - its about doing it "right". Even when you make a mistake there may not be collision (as in that case) since the other guy will take preventive action.

Obviously, we want AVs to do it right as often as possible, because we want them to be the best drivers possible, better than humans. But the fact is that AVs will never do it right 100% of the time. That is not realistic because driving environments can be complex and even chaotic with factors outside the AV's control. It is also true sometimes, the same driving scenario can have multiple right answers, depending on the specifics of the situation. AVs, like human drivers, have to use their judgment of the "best" way to handle a situation safely. The right answer is not always the same. That's the nature of driving. It can be fluid and complicated.

And it depends if the mistake is likely to cause a collision or not. A mistake that is likely to cause a collision is more serious than a mistake that is less likely to cause a collision. You want to focus on minimizing the first type in order to reduce collisions. If the AV makes a mistake that is not likely to cause a collision that is more "acceptable". Ultimately, it is about reducing collisions both actual and potential collisions.

Waymo advocates for the concept of the "absence of unreasonable risk". The idea is that you don't just reduce collisions, you also reduce unreasonable risk. All driving has some risk, but you want to eliminate risk that is not reasonable, that could contribute to a collision. Obviously, Waymo is not perfect in this. Nobody is. I would argue that the ULT we saw, was a failure, because Waymo did put itself in unreasonable risk by partially blocking the lane. Hopefully, Waymo will look at that case to improve in the future. But I would also point out that Waymo has done millions of driverless miles. In that many miles, there are bound to be some fails. Again, AV safety is not about perfection but about achieving a certain number of miles per critical failure that is acceptable for deployment. Waymo has achieved safety good enough for their current driverless deployment. They will continue to improve safety as they scale bigger.
 
Last edited:
Don't know if this has been posted before. Guy wearing a stop sign on his shirt stops a Waymo.
The solution is not hard for Waymo. They will use the video as negative examples of when to stop.
I think it's more difficult than we'd imagine.

What's the difference between this guy and a construction worker holding a slow/stop sign? To us, an easy distinction based on many cues. To a self driving car? We can only speculate.

Additionally you run into the "Chucks Left Turn" problem that people love to harp about with FSD, and the fact they will need way more data than this one guy would provide.
 
They would need a LOT more data than this one guy (or a few they) can generate.

They will probably try to figure out whether it is on a piece of cloth that the person is wearing or a placard.
Or they just won't do anything about it. All this concern about adversarial stuff is silly. These are not combat vehicles, there are many ways to stop them. When Waymo makes a military version then they can worry about this kind of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
That is a big problem, especially when there are many of them. Stop them on a freeway? Can cause serious injury or death. Stopping is one thing, there are many other types of attacks, like routing the vehicle into a wall.
Bricks are cheap and effective against both human driven vehicles and Waymos.
I'd much rather be in the backseat of a Waymo if someone throws a brick through the windshield.
 
Or they just won't do anything about it. All this concern about adversarial stuff is silly. These are not combat vehicles, there are many ways to stop them. When Waymo makes a military version then they can worry about this kind of thing.
Wait - I saw in one of the YT videos how they paid a lot of attention to adversarial situations. I forget whether it was a MobilEye video or YT. May be @diplomat33 or someone else remembers ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: diplomat33
Wait - I saw in one of the YT videos how they paid a lot of attention to adversarial situations. I forget whether it was a MobilEye video or YT. May be @diplomat33 or someone else remembers ...
Well, if they are, I think it's a waste of time. There have been quite a few attacks on Waymo vehicles and none of them have been anywhere near as sophisticated as radar spoofing.
It would not be very hard to make the radar system immune to spoofing. Being immune to jamming is probably much more difficult.
Here's the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16024
 
Well, if they are, I think it's a waste of time. There have been quite a few attacks on Waymo vehicles and none of them have been anywhere near as sophisticated as radar spoofing.
It would not be very hard to make the radar system immune to spoofing. Being immune to jamming is probably much more difficult.
Here's the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16024
We’ll, I’d not go so far as to say waste of time, just that it’s a WIP.

I remember seeing in the video that statue / cutout of Marilyn Monroe and some other iconic adversarial examples.

I don’t know how many adversarial examples would it take for NN to learn to distinguish real vs imitation. If that is thousands, it would make it difficult to get in real world. May be AI generated ?!
 
What's the difference between this guy and a construction worker holding a slow/stop sign? To us, an easy distinction based on many cues. To a self driving car? We can only speculate.

I think that is why computer vision needs to be more detailed. Human vision sees the world in super high def and we see every little detail. For example, we don't just see a pedestrian, we see every detail of the pedestrian, from the clothes they wear, to the brand on their baseball cap, the watch on their wrist, the type of sneakers etc... We don't just see a car, we see every part of the car, from the license plate to the wheel caps etc... Now obviously, a lot of that detail is not needed for driving and humans learn to ignore details that are not relevant to driving. But that detail does help us. In this case, a human would see that the stop sign is a print on a t-shirt so we would know it is not a real stop sign that needs to be obeyed. Or we see a stop sign being held by a construction worker so we know it is a temp stop sign that should be obeyed. Computer vision needs to understand that detail and context as well in order not be fooled.

Sensor fusion could also help. In this case, the lidar would detect a pedestrian, the camera vision would detect the pattern of a stop sign at the exact same location as the pedestrian. So the perception could learn that this stop sign is not real because it is "inside" the pedestrian and real stop signs are distinct from people. Additionally, if the stop sign is moving with the same velocity as the pedestrian that is another clue that it is a false since stop signs don't move like pedestrians.

Context could also help. I bet you could train ML based on millions of examples where stop signs are usually located. Then, perception could see if the stop sign matches the training of where stop signs are supposed to be. For example, we know stop signs are located at intersections, on city streets, construction zones. Stop signs are not located If the answer is no, then that would be another indicator that the stop sign is false. For example, we know stop signs are located at intersections, on city streets, construction zones. Stop signs are not located in the middle of the side walk where there is no reason to stop. Also, are other vehicles are stopping? If no, then that is another contextual clue that it is likely a false stop sign.

In conclusion, I would say that self-driving cars can learn the difference. It just takes more ML training to make the system better at understanding context.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DanCar
I don’t know how many adversarial examples would it take for NN to learn to distinguish real vs imitation. If that is thousands, it would make it difficult to get in real world. May be AI generated ?!
I don't think it's possible. Sure you could probably train the system to recognize any particular attack but humans are inventive. AI is very bad at recognizing things that have never happened before.
Computer vision is evolving rapidly. Just look at where we were 10, 5 years ago. Things will be much different by the end of the decade, where vision will have something we can call common sense.
What advance will allow that? It doesn't seem like more training data will help.
How will it get this question right? FSD v12.x (end to end AI)
It's probably been trained on a million pictures of a Tesla Model 3 so it has more than enough data to know exactly where the line is. Maybe GPT-5 training data will include this forum discussion and get it right.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: EVNow
What advance will allow that?
Don't know, but I do know there is lots of research in many areas such as:
  1. Video understanding. Gemini Pro for example has some good results for this.
  2. Image to text.
  3. Lots of work with memory
  4. High level structuring of how neural networks work such as Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA)
  5. and much more...
It doesn't seem like more training data will help.
Agree.

How will it get this question right? FSD v12.x (end to end AI)
That can be answered with more labeled training data, but that is somewhat of a crutch and not much of a solution, in my opinion.

It's probably been trained on a million pictures of a Tesla Model 3 so it has more than enough data to know exactly where the line is.
Good labeled data is the key. Just a ton of raw video won't help.

Maybe GPT-5 training data will include this forum discussion and get it right.
:)