If you prefer a more positive spin: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/advanced-driver-distraction-warning-systems-071000637.html
If you prefer a more positive spin: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/advanced-driver-distraction-warning-systems-071000637.html
And I am totally sure it will not misread someone turning their head to secure a lane change going 220 km/h on the Autobahn and will not spook them with a sudden, unexpected alarm sound making the driver jerk the steering wheel causing a horrible crash.
The rental cars I’ve used in Europe in the last few years are absolutely relentless with their warnings; it just becomes noise that you ignore.
It thinks you’re not watching the road, it thinks the speed limit is 30kph when the signs say 80, it doesn’t like that you’ve crossed into another lane to pass a cyclist, it’s warm outside, it’s cold outside, the person who just got into the car hasn’t finished putting their seatbelt on, the bag on the back seat hasn’t put its seatbelt on, your parking spot is within a meter of another car, the tires are 32 PSI instead of 33.
Alarm fatigue sets in really fast.
You talk like the whole Problem doesn’t already start with a AI Camera filming you the entire time in your face. Modern Cars already sell a lot of data about you. Much more then you expect a car to know about you. Yea give them my facedata and a Videofeed of me… great idea…
We don’t even need to talk about how these signals can spook someone. Such cameras should not be in the car in the first place
The law mandates that data processing must happen locally.
That said, fuck these new systems.
Does it mandate that no other data processing can happen while sending it somewhere else?
To be fair… Currently the law also states that the data processing needs to happen locally and no data may leave the car. The new law certainly introduces potential for abuse, especially since auto makers have proven themselves in recent years to be willing to break laws if it benefits them (Dieselgate anyone?). But as of now your fears are mostly unfounded.
No, my point is exactly AI’s fallability and the implications of too fallible systems being implemented in conjunction with those systems uploading every data.
Sorry for thinking other people would be smart enough to pick that up.
No need to passive aggressively call me dumb.
All I’m saying is that the problem already starts way sooner. Even without AI. And even if the AI would be perfect and would make no mistakes, these cameras should not be there in the first place. If you putting your focus on AIs fallibility, you implicate that an good AI would be no problem stalking you 24/7. And yes. I know that you probably don’t mean it like that. You probably also have a problem with a camera stalking you in the first place. That’s why I said “you talk like”. We are probably on the same site and have the same opinion, and I thought so too when I wrote my comment. Just thought that’s important to add. But hey, everyone else then you is a dumb idiot! Really nice to insult people that aren’t even against you!
Have a nice day.
It’s not like LLMs will be doing this - they just get lumped under the same vague “AI” label. I believe these types of systems are much more reliable. I’d also be surprised if the warning is anything as obnoxious as to cause the driver to jerk the steering wheel, because that would be a problem even if it is correct.
I know there are reliable AI applications, for example cancer recognition models scanning CT imaging.
However, from what I know systems trying pattern recognition in human behaviour are the opposite of these medical implementations.
Those are not reliable at all and only meant as hints for the radiologist to check certain areas twice. They do not identify cancer but spots that may be out of place. However, not all radiologists seem to know that and a relative of mine would have been pushed into end-of-life care if not for the intervention of another doctor in the family. He had to take it up to the head of department, though. The spots in question turned out to be old scarring and could have been easily identified if the radiologist had also consulted older scans as would have been her damned job. Instead she thought the AI was thinking for her.
Similar software also exists for spotting tooth cavities. It’s useful, but not to be trusted.
I give up.
Apparently you do have to caveat every little fucking case for every screwed up situation that could ever exist. OBVIOUSLY these scans have to be double checked and OBVIOUSLY “reliable” does not mean “never ever could something go wrong” and OBVIOUSLY shitty or overworked personnel makes wrong decisions.
But if you have to account for all that in every yet so minor argument you want to make you’d have to write at least a bachelor thesis level publication about the weather being warm and sunny outside my window right now.
You cannot have a basic discussion about any topic on this level so screw it, I’m out of this.
I’m fucking autistic and love to get into unnecessary depths of details but this is too much even for me AND YES I KNOW autism is a spectrum so YES OBVIOUSLY there will be some people WHO MIGHT NOT EVEN BE AUTISTIC who love it even more to discuss these details but this is just dumb and I just can’t anymore.
Don’t you feel that this is a bit uncalled for? All I said is that these pieces of software do not in fact identify cancer. They are not reliable because they aren’t even allowed to be in the circumstances that they are supposed to be used. They are a visual aid, nothing more.
Every article and paper I found so far concludes that AI improves the ability of medical personnel to recognize and diagnose cancer.
And no, it is not uncalled for, because I had to deal with such bullshit the whole damn day (and not for the first time) and it is enough. I’m logging out for today.
I’m not saying it doesn’t. I’m saying it doesn’t detect cancer and is not reliable. If you know how it’s supposed to work, it works. It suggests areas where you should look. However, there are doctors who don’t know how to use it and they can and will kill people with it.
The way your last post was worded, I would very much suggest that that’s a you problem.
Or the cancer recognition model might flag your X-ray as cancer just because it was taken with a particular type of X-ray machine…
Not that this would ever happen, of course. (it did)
Exactly that. The software is not meant to flag anything as cancer, though. It’s meant to flag points of interest and it’s the radiologist’s job to check what they might be. The problem is, that there seem to be radiologists who think the AI can accurately detect cancer.
https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/26825537
Those signals are as subtle and obvious as all other signals a car can give. This system has already existed for many years and already exists in many cars. You can easily ignore it.
Where is the point then?
Technology is god and will solve all our problems. At least in politician’s minds.
It was mandatory for new vehicle types since 2024. Now it is mandatory for all new vehicles, including old types.
No, that’s not what I meant. What is the point of a warning system that can easily be ignored?
The manufacturers make money. They have lobbied for it. See that press release: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/advanced-driver-distraction-warning-systems-071000637.html
Maybe local car manufacturers appreciate a barrier for importing foreign cars.
But maybe it is simply bad law-making. The law requires such a system. It does not require that it works. Many regulations in Europe are like that.
Partly that may be because industry likes it that way. If they were held accountable for deaths caused by their cars, they would have to do open-ended research. They might be held accountable for sneaky maneuvers. They might have to implement unpopular features, which the politicians would not like either cause voters. This way, they just tick boxes on a compliance checklist. It doesn’t matter if it works. That’s called “legal certainty”. Everyone says how important that is.
But I’m sure, in many cases it is simply incompetence. Neither the politicians nor the bureaucrats who write the laws know what they are doing. Clueless people often try to compensate by micromanaging. They don’t know the problems that causes. In fairness, the actual experts work for the industry that is being regulated. You can’t trust those guys. So there’s no reason to believe the experts when they say something is a bad idea. They say that about anything that costs them money.
That it can be ignored and doesn’t distract the driver from driving.
Sooner or later, even the obnoxious warning systems will be ignored, because alarm fatigue is a thing.
A warning syszem should not be able to be ignired easily. A warning system you can block out is not a working warning system.
Holy shit, I got to spell out every little obviousness today.
An unreliable warning system that spams you with useless distracting warnings shouldn’t exist at all. If stupid politicians mandate such systems by law, the smart choice by responsible manufacturers is making them easily ignoreable to avoid alarm fatigue leading to users ignoring actually reliable and important warning systems.
YES! ESACTLY WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY!
Do you happen to know of any empirical studies on the effectiveness?