New research shows driverless car software is significantly more accurate with adults and light skinned people than children and dark-skinned people.

  • snooggums@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    A stealth bomber gives less signal because of angles and materials and how they interact with radar, not because they are small or painted a dark color.

    If a dark skinned person and a white skinned person are both wearing the same pants and long sleeved shirts, why would skin color be a factor beyond some kind of poorly implemented face recognition software like auto focus on cameras that also don’t work well for dark skinned folks? Especially when some of the object recognition is just looking for things in the way, not necessarily people.

    No, it is not some simple explanation based on people’s eyes from the driver’s seat while driving in the dark. It is a result of the systems being trained based on white adults (probably men based on most medical and tech trials) instead of being trained on a comprehensive data set that represents the actual population.

    • typhonaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While some of these cars use radar to an extent. I believe this is mostly focusing on image recognition, which is from a camera. Both are distinctly different in how they recognize objects.

      Image recognition relies on cameras which relies on contrast. All of which is dependent on light levels. One thing to note about contrast is that it’s relative to its surroundings. I think this situation is more similar to your eyes recognizing things while driving in the dark than you think. I suggest you research how these things work before making claims.

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, in fact. This has been a huge challenge in photography algorithms for decades.

          HP cameras couldn’t detect black people in 2009: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/22/hp.webcams/index.html

          Google classified black people as gorillas in 2015: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai

          Zoom had issues with black faces and dark backgrounds in 2020: https://onezero.medium.com/zooms-virtual-background-feature-isn-t-built-for-black-faces-e0a97b591955

          A quick primer in colour: recall that light colours reflect more light than dark colours. This means image recognition devices relying on cameras using standard spectrums (i.e. not infrared) receive less light into the sensor when pointed at someone with dark skin. The problem is constant, but less pronounced depending on the background. That is, a black person against a white background would be easier for an algorithm to identify as a person than said black person against a mixed or dark background.

          • snooggums@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            All of those had issues for the sensors and recognition aoftware because their data set to determine what a face is was mostly white people.

            Just because something is harder doesn’t excuse then for not putting in the effort to get it right.

            • typhonaut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not necessarily effort. Data can be expensive and difficult to obtain. If the data doesn’t exist then they have to gather it themselves which is even more expensive.

              I agree that they should be making sure they can account for both cases as much as possible. But you have to remember that from the frame of reference of the model being trained and used in these instances, the only data they’re aware of is the data they were trained on and the data they are currently seeing. If most of the data samples in the entire world feature white people 60% of the time it’s going to be much better at recognizing white people. I don’t think anyone is purposely choosing to focus on white people; I think that those tend to be the data samples that are most easily obtained or simply the most prolific.

              I also think we need to take into account quality of data. As mentioned before, contrast plays a big role in image recognition. High contrast with background results in, on average, better data samples and a better chance of usable data. Training models on data that is not conclusive on ambiguous can lead to ineffective learning and bad predictive scores.

              I don’t think anyone is saying this isn’t a problem but I also don’t believe that this is a willful failure. I think that good data can be difficult to get and that data featuring white people tends to have easier time using image recognition successfully.

              Someone else mentioned infrared imaging, which is a good idea but also more money and adds an extra point of failure. There are pros and cons to every approach and strategy.

              • snooggums@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Cost being used as an excuse not to expand the data set to represent all types of people is just excusing systemic racism and other discrimination. For example, if the system requires two arms for it to recognize a person that is also a problem, because a person comes in a wife variety of shapes, sizes, and colors.

                If the system can’t handle that then it doesn’t regocnize people. If it costs too much to do right, then that means they can’t afford to do it at all.

            • JasSmith@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In some cases the data sets were only white, but engineers have been cognisant of this issue for decades so I don’t think that’s as common as you might believe. More frequently it’s just physics.

              As for “putting in the effort,” companies are doing this, to their detriment. Ensuring that a small proportion of their customer base has a perfect experience is very expensive. In business the calculation between cost and profit is very important. If you’re arguing that companies should provide unprofitable products so that your sensibilities can be assuaged then I disagree. No company has a duty to provide a product to you.

              • snooggums@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ensuring that a small proportion of their customer base has a perfect experience is very expensive.

                We are talking about that portion of the population being hit by cars.

              • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No company has a duty to provide a product to you.

                A company making driverless cars damn well does have a duty to make sure their program doesn’t run over children.

    • xNIBx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is a result of the systems being trained based on white adults

      It’s both. The system is racist because of how it was trained and because its developers were not black, therefore “it worked for them” during development. And because black people are harder for cameras to see, especially in low light environments.

      Even with clothes on, the dark skin, in a dark environment, “breaks” the “this is human” pattern that the ai expects to see, since the ai can see only the clothes. It is like camouflage. Can the ai “see” a pair of pants? Maybe, eventually but it still reduces the certainty, since the ai sees fewer “signs”.

      • TowardsTheFuture
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Cameras should be using infrared to look for objects in the dark and not fucking hoping it looks slightly less dark than the surrounding pixels. It being “dark” is not an excuse. Cars drive at night and need to be engineered around that fact.

        Edit: note this is about cameras. Ideally, you’d use radar which wouldn’t care but if you are just dual purposing cameras used for driving, this is the bare minimum.

          • TowardsTheFuture
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not thermal imaging infrared, that would only see hot objects and be terrible for everything else. Just a normal infrared camera. Like most security cameras. They give off their own infrared using LED’s around the camera to see at night. Generally with a light sensor to know when it’s too dark to switch on the infrared lights.

            Maybe this is banned in cars since infrared lights might pop up on rear view mirror cameras and such in newer cars, causing issues. Can’t say I know car manufacturing law.

    • Redscare867@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      These systems are often trained on data obtained from driving the car around. I think the only real solution would be planning routes through more diverse neighborhoods. Although any company that is taking this seriously from a safety perspective has multiple radars and a top mounted LiDAR on their vehicles. Those sensors should be sufficient for detecting humans regardless of race even in a completely dark environment. Relying solely on camera data is just asking for problems for this and many other reasons.