We argue that object detectors in the safety critical domain should prioritize detection of objects that are most likely to interfere with the actions of the autonomous actor. Especially, this applies to objects that can impact the actor's safety and reliability. To quantify the impact of object (mis)detection on safety and reliability in the context of autonomous driving, we propose new object detection measures that reward the correct identification of objects that are most dangerous and most likely to affect driving decisions. To achieve this, we build an object criticality model to reward the detection of the objects based on proximity, orientation, and relative velocity with respect to the subject vehicle. Then, we apply our model on the recent autonomous driving dataset nuScenes, and we compare nine object detectors. Results show that, in several settings, object detectors that perform best according to the nuScenes ranking are not the preferable ones when the focus is shifted on safety and reliability.

When AI agents don't align their actions with human values they may cause serious harm. One way to solve the value alignment problem is by including a human operator who monitors all of the agent's actions. Despite the fact, that this solution guarantees maximal safety, it is very inefficient, since it requires the human operator to dedicate all of his attention to the agent. In this paper, we propose a much more efficient solution that allows an operator to be engaged in other activities without neglecting his monitoring task. In our approach the AI agent requests permission from the operator only for critical actions, that is, potentially harmful actions. We introduce the concept of critical actions with respect to AI safety and discuss how to build a model that measures action criticality. We also discuss how the operator's feedback could be used to make the agent smarter.