Slashdot Mirror
People Trust Tech Companies Over Automakers For Self-Driving Cars
Lucas123 writes "Consumers appear more willing to use a self-driving car from a leading technology company, such as Google, over an auto manufacturer like Ford or Toyota, according to a new study from KPMG. Based on polls of focus groups, technology companies scored highest among consumers, with a median score of 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 as the highest level of trust. Premium auto brands received a score of 7.75, while mass-market brands received a score of 5. Google is the brand most associated with self-driving cars, according to the study, while Nissan lead the mass auto producers in recognition for autonomous technology; that was based on its pledge in August to launch an affordable self-driving car by 2020. 'We believe that self-driving cars will be profoundly disruptive to the traditional automotive ecosystem,' KPMG stated." I suspect that when autonomous cars start arriving for ordinary buyers, there will be a lot of co-branding, as there is now for various car subsystems and even levels of trim.
I'd trust the quality of an AI from a machine learning company (Google) more than one from a mechanical engineering company (Ford).
Its not like Google is making the "Car" part of it. They are getting that from a car company. I'd trust a car company to make the car portion far more than I'd trust Google, but that is not the issue at hand.
I own an Android phone.
I'd trust Ford with my phone long before i'd trust Google with my car.
People trust the *idea* of self driving cars from tech companies over those from automakers. But, when reality bites and the consumer is presented with the Google Nexusmobile vs. the new GM AutoDominator, you'll see a very different sentiment.
People say all sorts of things... until it comes time to pay for it or put their own lives at risk.
TBH its not a question of trust per se, since it will be mass produced to the lowest bidder who will most likely cut corners. It is a bigger question of who is liable when it goes wrong? Right now the nut behind the wheel is liable, yet if we put an AI in charge, what happens when it goes wrong? The opt out / easy method is to still make the 'operator' liable. Will the 'operator' have to be awake at all times and focusing on the road for when something goes wrong? Because if so then although it may well self drive the fact it needs to be constantly monitored kinda negates a large part of its autonomy. I mean computers never go wrong right?
I ripped my OnStar box out of my car because of their tracking policy so what makes me want to trust either the car makers or the technology companies? If Google does it you can be sure I'll be spammed with tons of ads and my every move will be tracked, mined and sold to any company or government they choose. I can see where auto makers will eventually do the same, Before self driving we'll all now have boxes tracking our distance in the name of eliminating gasoline taxes for roads which adds another dimension to all this data gathering on our movements. Until we get the privacy laws straight we shouldn't be considering self driving cars.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
This is no surprise really. Who would you trust to program a computer in charge of your life? A company who revolutionised the way we communicate and interact with technology? A company which offers incredible services which make our lives better thanks to gobbling up talented software engineers.
Or.
A company who's greatest innovation in the past 5 years is asking congress for handouts, and designing a touch screen interface for a car radio where the only new feature is that it is now far more difficult to use.
I wouldn't trust a web-oriented company with self-driving car development. They're into "agile","features now, quality later if ever" and "release and patch" development. That's not how avionics are developed, and production self-driving cars need avionics-quality software.
Self-driving needs the engineering discipline that comes from having to pay for a recall when it doesn't work, and paying for damages when it hurts someone.
No sane auto manufacturer is going to take the risk of legal liability. There will be accidents. And there will be lawsuits.
I am betting all the research that goes on at Ford or Toyota is just for the patents - they don't ever want to go in to production. Too risky.
Google car: Will be named the "Beta." It will work great for the first three years, then Google will shut it down. If you have any problems, you will find that there is no customer support number.
Microsoft car: Will be named "Ding." You'll be cruising down the highway when the control panel suddenly says "Rebooting to install updates in 9...8...7..." Owners of the first few versions will have close encounters with telephone poles. Nobody will sell you car insurance.
Apple car: Will be named "iDrive." The car will cost $300k and will look modern and sexy. Build quality will be excellent. No matter what destination you enter, you'll end up in Camden because it uses Apple maps.
Oracle car: Will be named "Oracle Car." The car will cost $400k and you'll need an expensive consultant to make it work.
I wouldn't take much stock in this. All it really reveals is what we already know, Google has had a lot of publicity around their self-driving cars and thus are more popular and would show up more in web conversations (which is where they got their data - MOBI).
Personally, I would trust car manufacturers much more than Google to deliver a self-driving car. Google is developing the technology but it's up to the car company to tweak and integrate it safely. This is no different than the other tech components created by various companies and integrated into our vehicles (i.e. Radio, GPS, Follow Cruise Control, Traction Control, heated seats, etc.). When we go to buy a car it will simply be listed in the specs. For example: Heated seats, Alpine Infotainment system, Quadra-Trac II traction control, Google Autonomous Drive, etc....
Marketing has done so much damage to people's ability to reason.
How are automakers not "tech companies"? Do they think it's magic making the car go forward? Do they think the 50 or so microprocessors that are in every new car are powered by faeries?
Seriously, it's like saying they trust McDonalds over farmers to produce food. Oh wait...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Self-driving cars means that people will be able to drink and "drive" to their hearts content, legally and safely. This will help to rejuvenate the ailing club/pub scene and maybe restore the live entertainment industry to grace. It would make sense for liquor companies, pubs and clubs to invest substantially in autonomous vehicle tech. Anyone up for a new "Roaring 20s"?
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Maybe I'm just a control freak, but I don't think I could trust a self-driving car under any circumstances, regardless of manufacturer. Maybe that will change over time, but I'm not counting on it.
Yup... all of us make mistakes from time to time. You caught one. Congrats. This one thankfully did not lead to a ton of twisted metal and injuries.
I try not to make mistakes, Inevitably, given my best intentions, I screw up now and then, and when I do, its usually a whopper.
I have seen enough distracted people with a car full of interrupting annoyances ( aka kids, noisy wives, and cellphones ) that I am learning to trust a machine to do it right. I learned long ago a sewing machine could make a helluva lot better stitch than I can.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
This is no surprise really. Who would you trust to program a computer in charge of your life?
You trust a true nerd: Someone who is obsessive about correctness, some distance down the Asperger's spectrum, and who's convinced that the consequences of having a bug are their fault. Hygiene and dress-code are secondary.
I used to code aircraft avionics software (microcontroller stuff for altimeters, airspeed, cabin pressurization, &c). Some of my avionics-related courses asked "are you willing to be the first passenger in an aircraft running this software? raise your hand", and typically mine was the only hand showing.
There's a mindset for making safety-certified software, and not everyone has it. Most people rationalize doing a poor job by denying responsibility: the boss told them to do it, they have to feed their family, everyone else does it, and so on and so on. It's the mindset that allows the NSA get away with rights violations: no one takes responsibility at any level.
A true nerd is a little like Rain Man, and will feel responsible for accidents that happen because of his mistakes. In my mind it feels like walking a tightrope over a canyon with no net - I'm always scared of screwing up and I have this mental image of screaming people plunging to their doom. I'm not making this up, the image sometimes pops into my mind while I'm on a project.
I don't trust my coding skills, of course: there has to be a QA department with testers going over the code, proper paper trails and procedures, independent customer testing, and management that cares about quality. With all this, it still takes courage for me to work on an aircraft project.
I've met people who do and others who do not have this mindset. One FAA engineer (DER - Designated Engineer Responsible) asked about whether using a 1-byte code checksum (at startup, to verify code integrity) was sufficient and maybe 2-bytes would be safer, and *nothing else* about the project. A 2nd FAA engineer tested the system through literally all the specifications, verifying that the product did what it was supposed to do. As uncomfortable as the 2nd DER was making management, I'd much rather work with him: he understands what's at stake.
I don't think it's a case of trusting Google over Ford, or even an application company versus a car company. It's the mindset of the people making the product, and the level to which they feel responsible for the final product. It's only a little bit the mindset of management.
tl;dr: It's not the type of company, it's the type of individuals who make the product.
By law. They have to acknowledge defects, call "recalls", and fix them. Software companies do not. Software companies can sweep things under the rug. So news broadcasts talk about car companies defects but you never really hear much about software defects. This gives software companies an aura of competence the usually do not deserve. It is a matter of perception.
Personally, I would trust car companies first. Not only are they liable, but by being forced to face up to their defects their product is incredibly safer and cheaper, in terms of inflation adjusted TCO, than ever. And getting much greener to boot.
BTW, this is a perfect example of what good government regulation can do.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
A Software Engineer, a Hardware Engineer and a Departmental Manager were on their way to a meeting in Switzerland. They were driving down a steep mountain road when suddenly the brakes on their car failed. The car careened almost out of control down the road, bouncing off the crash barriers, until it miraculously ground to a halt scraping along the mountainside. The car's occupants, shaken but unhurt, now had a problem: they were stuck halfway down a mountain in a car with no brakes. What were they to do?
"I know", said the Departmental Manager, "Let's have a meeting, propose a Vision, formulate a Mission Statement, define some Goals, and by a process of Continuous Improvement find a solution to the Critical Problems, and we can be on our way."
"No, no", said the Hardware Engineer, "That will take far too long, and besides, that method has never worked before. I've got my Swiss Army knife with me, and in no time at all I can strip down the car's braking system, isolate the fault, fix it, and we can be on our way."
"Well", said the Software Engineer, "Before we do anything, I think we should push the car back up the road and see if it happens again."
Have gnu, will travel.