Vehicle Voice Interface Safety Protocol Interception
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing speech processing systems in vehicles often fail to prevent unsafe actions when user requests contravene safety protocols, leading to potential hazards during operations like driving, as they lack effective mechanisms to block or explain prohibited actions based on real-time sensor data and metadata.
Innovation Solution
Implementing a system that integrates speech recognition, natural language understanding, and protocol recognition to intercept user requests, determine if they violate safety protocols, and generate feedback explaining why the action cannot be performed, using sensor data and metadata to block prohibited intents, domains, and skills, and provide user feedback through text, audio, or visual indicators.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If speech recognition systems allow all user requests to be executed, then user convenience and system responsiveness are improved, but safety hazards may occur when requests violate safety protocols
Solution Approach 1:
The patent introduces an intermediary safety protocol checking mechanism that sits between the speech recognition system and the action execution system. This intermediary layer receives user requests, checks them against safety protocols using sensor data and metadata, and only allows execution of safe requests. This resolves the contradiction by maintaining user convenience for safe operations while blocking harmful actions that would otherwise be executed.
Solution Approach 2:
The system implements feedback by notifying users when their requests are blocked due to safety violations. The feedback mechanism explains why certain actions cannot be performed based on current vehicle conditions and safety protocols, allowing users to understand the reasoning while preventing unsafe operations. This maintains user convenience through transparency while ensuring safety compliance.
2Object-affected harmful factors
If the system blocks requests that violate safety protocols, then safety hazards are prevented, but user frustration increases due to inability to perform requested actions
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements a feedback mechanism that provides users with explanations when their requests are blocked. Instead of simply denying the action, the system communicates why the request cannot be fulfilled based on safety protocols and current vehicle conditions. This reduces user frustration by making the system's behavior transparent and understandable, while still maintaining safety constraints.
Solution Approach 2:
The system converts the potential harm of user frustration into a benefit by using blocked requests as teaching opportunities. When users attempt unsafe actions, the system explains the safety rationale, which can improve user awareness and understanding of vehicle safety protocols over time. This transforms negative user experience into educational value while maintaining safety.
3Loss of information
If the system provides detailed explanations for blocked actions, then user understanding and trust are improved, but system complexity and processing time increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the explanation generation process into distinct components: safety protocol checking, condition evaluation, and feedback formulation. Each component handles a specific aspect of the safety verification process, making the overall system more manageable and maintainable. This segmentation allows for modular development and easier updates to safety protocols without redesigning the entire system.
Solution Approach 2:
The system performs preliminary action by pre-defining safety protocols and conditions before runtime. Safety rules, sensor thresholds, and protocol conditions are established in advance, allowing the system to quickly evaluate user requests against predetermined criteria rather than creating explanations from scratch each time. This reduces real-time processing complexity while maintaining comprehensive safety checking.
Data Source
AI summary
Devices and techniques are generally described for implementing a vehicle voice user interface. In some examples, a first request may be received from a first computing system. In some further examples, natural language data comprising a semantic representation of the first request may be determined. In some further examples, first metadata corresponding to the first computing system may be determined. In some examples, a restriction on execution of the first action may be determined in accordance with the first metadata. In at least some further examples, output data indicative of the restriction on execution of the first action may be sent to the first computing system.