Uber Starts Self Driving Car Pickups In Pittsburgh (techcrunch.com)

Great! by b0bby · 2016-09-14 03:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's good to see more real world testing of these systems in a challenging environment. It will be interesting to see how they handle Pittsburgh's winter. I was hoping that they'd be ready by now, since my kid is about to get a driver's license, but at least I should be able to buy one in 5 or 6 years.

Re:Great! by geekmux · 2016-09-14 04:17 · Score: 1

It's good to see more real world testing of these systems in a challenging environment...
Well, that's certainly one hell of a way of describing trial by fire where human lives are at stake.
Uber wants to know how people would "react" with autonomous cars? Yeah, I'll let you know when Common F. Sense feels safe enough to trust one. In about 10 years.
Re:Great! by b0bby · 2016-09-14 04:36 · Score: 2

You have a driver sitting in the thing, with a big red button to hit or an easy way to take back control by moving the wheel or tapping the brakes. That doesn't seem to be putting human lives at much more risk than anyone else out on the road. And the payoff of this testing is that every mistake, in theory, should only be made once.
Re:Great! by DarkVader · 2016-09-14 05:00 · Score: 1

Sure. Keep telling yourself that. Never mind that it's already happening, never mind that Ford has already announced a ship date, just go back to sleep.
Re: Great! by easyTree · 2016-09-14 05:34 · Score: 1

Nu-uh - if one is driving, one is fully immersed in the flow of information streaming in to the extent of predicting what's going to happen next.
Dependent on the extent that the human copilot trusts the SkyNet prototype, they will be more or less engaged. The delay when switching from observation- to participation-mode will be too great.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Great! by phantomfive · 2016-09-14 05:45 · Score: 1

You're going to be disappointed, this isn't ready either: it has two engineers in the front seats making sure things don't go wrong. According to the article, they hope to have that down to one engineer in the near future, and zero engineers.......sometime.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Great! by DarkVader · 2016-09-14 07:17 · Score: 1

The point is that the technology already works. At this point, it's all about refining it. And it's a very reasonable assumption that they're going to make that ship date, because they've got five years to refine a technology that is already workable now.
This is not some far-off maybe scenario. Self-driving cars are on the road today. Millions of miles have been driven by computers. They will be a product, and they will be a product within five years.
Re: Great! by cthulhu11 · 2016-09-15 14:25 · Score: 1

Sliding down Snegley?

Abolish Jobs by alternative_right · 2016-09-14 03:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

Jobs are miserable and robotic; giving them to robots is a great justice.

Instead, we should pay people to achieve the goals of civilization: maintaining land and buildings, participating in cultural events, having families, curating farms, maybe even maintaining old documents and cumulative knowledge.

The cube-slave period of humanity will be seen as the bleakest, if only by the alien archeologists sifting through our rubble for clues as to how to avoid the potential demise of their own civilization.

--
Alternative Right.

Re:Abolish Jobs by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Instead, we should pay people to achieve the goals of civilization: [...]
Who is this "we" that's doing the paying?
Re:Abolish Jobs by geekmux · 2016-09-14 04:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Instead, we should pay people to achieve the goals of civilization: [...]
Who is this "we" that's doing the paying?
That's the problem with society today. We seemingly only find value in the almighty dollar.
Humans have already proven for thousands of years that money is not a necessary component of survival, no matter how the world today wants to paint it.
Re:Abolish Jobs by Hevel-Varik · 2016-09-14 05:07 · Score: 1

mistaken mod
Re:Abolish Jobs by s122604 · 2016-09-14 05:18 · Score: 1

This is the potential of technology, but it will only be realized if we get smart and do things like mandate shorter work weeks, or a universal income

unfortunately our corporate overlords have so completely brainwashed the population into thinking such ideas are dangerous that it will never happen, and we are just going to end up with a bunch of excess population.
Re:Abolish Jobs by swillden · 2016-09-14 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Instead, we should pay people to achieve the goals of civilization: [...]
Who is this "we" that's doing the paying?
That's the problem with society today. We seemingly only find value in the almighty dollar.
Humans have already proven for thousands of years that money is not a necessary component of survival, no matter how the world today wants to paint it.
Comments like your betray a deep and important misunderstanding of what money is. Money is a convenient fiction, no more and no less. It's a stand-in that we use to represent real resources and labor, to make exchanging them easy. The focus on "the almighty dollar" is actually a focus on "goods and services needed and desired by humans".
If what you're saying is that modern humanity is too materialistic, too focused on comfort and convenience and too accustomed to living in a world of plenty, you can make that argument. But complaining about a focus on money just demonstrates that you don't understand what money is.
Note that I'm not claiming that money is the only way to manage the production and exchange of goods and services. It's just the best one we've yet found in an environment of economic scarcity. If automation transitions us to a post-scarcity economy, in which there's so much of everything that everyone can have whatever they like, money may no longer be a good way to manage it. But we're certainly not there yet.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Abolish Jobs by HBI · 2016-09-14 05:44 · Score: 1

People who fail to see the exchange of currency as a transfer of value are hard to reason with. I suggest you imagine it as exchanging some bottled sweat for some KFC, rather than dollar bills or a credit card swipe.
Those who believe in a post-scarcity economy are destined to be disappointed. Everything costs effort and resources - raising chickens, growing potatoes, milling wheat to make biscuits and gravy. Much of this can be automated, but you still have to have land for chickens and growing crops. You'll need fuel to make everything work. You'll still need some human labor, a nonzero amount at the very least.
Then the question becomes: Why should you get KFC if you don't give any sweat?
This is why I see euthanasia as our future - the most benign one. It's either that or the usual Four Horsemen. If there are a lot of unnecessary people without gainful occupation, they'll get killed off somehow. It's human nature and can't be gainsaid.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Abolish Jobs by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-14 06:39 · Score: 1

Instead, we should pay people to achieve the goals of civilization: [...]
Who is this "we" that's doing the paying?
The robots, obviously. They have jobs so they can afford to pay humans to do maintenance jobs that are too dangerous to be done by robots.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:Abolish Jobs by Alomex · 2016-09-14 07:43 · Score: 1

Instead, we should pay people to achieve the goals of civilization: maintaining land and buildings, participating in cultural events, having families, curating farms, maybe even maintaining old documents and cumulative knowledge.
Last I checked, science and creating of new knowledge are key components of civilization, which are surprisingly missing from your list.
Re:Abolish Jobs by swillden · 2016-09-14 10:25 · Score: 1

Money is a convenient fiction, no more and no less. It's a stand-in that we use to represent real resources and labor, to make exchanging them easy.
Then explain how national banks the world over create money from nothing.
What I said is the explanation. Money being a convenient fiction, banks can create it. Not just national banks, either. Every time a loan is made in the fractional reserve system, the lending bank creates most of the money it loans.

Explain how entire market sectors are dedicated to making money with money. They certainly are not using money as "a stand-in [to] represent real resources and labor."
By and large, they actually are. The financial system's competitive money movers are out for their own interest and don't care so much about the goods and services that underlie what they're doing, but what they're doing is pushing capital into the businesses that can most effectively use it... meaning they're enabling those who can most effectively produce goods and services people want to get the capital needed to produce. There are many layers of abstraction that obscure this, and there are some components of the financial system that are so distant from anything resembling real goods that there may not actually be any real connection. That's unfortunate, but on the grand scale a fairly minor flaw in the system and one that doesn't change the fundamental role and purpose of money, or even of financial systems.

Unless the federal reserve managed to find a way around the laws of physics and are creating real resources from nothing.
Obviously they're not. The money they create is a medium of exchange, not the resources it's used to represent. But it actually is true that creating money and lending it to businesses who need it to expand actually does produce the corresponding resources later... goods or services that are sold in order to pay off the debt (of invented money; thereby uninventing it), plus some more.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Abolish Jobs by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-14 16:11 · Score: 1

You make think you're funny, but you're actually ignorant. There are thousands and thousands of people in the US who pay Federal income tax, but cannot vote. They are visa holders.
Re:Abolish Jobs by swillden · 2016-09-15 01:54 · Score: 1

You make think you're funny, but you're actually ignorant. There are thousands and thousands of people in the US who pay Federal income tax, but cannot vote. They are visa holders.
Millions, actually. Many -- perhaps most -- undocumented immigrants also pay federal and state income taxes.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Abolish Jobs by swillden · 2016-09-15 07:43 · Score: 1

Even in a futuristic "post-scarcity" economy, money will still be needed for the oldest and grandest of all services: prostitution.
What would motivate prostitutes in a post-scarcity world?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Abolish Jobs by david_thornley · 2016-09-15 09:36 · Score: 1

We're not really talking post-scarcity here, but rather a situation where you can have a decent living without working. There's always going to be limits on most resources. (There have been pre-scarcity economies, where people just didn't care about stuff, but that seems to go away for most people in advanced economies.) Many people will want more money, and will be willing to work for it. I don't anticipate there to be a lack of workers for jobs that are reasonably well-paid for what they entail, and with a basic income we could ditch minimum-wage rules. There will be a shortage of people for crappy low-wage jobs.
So, I'd expect prostitutes in such a world to be pickier about clientele and charge more, probably much more, given that there would be many fewer women working in the field and presumably as much demand.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Abolish Jobs by david_thornley · 2016-09-15 09:37 · Score: 1

Approximately nobody pays for sweat. I'm earning very good money in my office chair. I do all my sweating in my off-hours. People pay for useful goods and services.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Abolish Jobs by HBI · 2016-09-15 09:42 · Score: 1

Sweat is a useful stand-in for generic labor. Are you really saying you don't perform useful work?

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Abolish Jobs by david_thornley · 2016-09-16 03:27 · Score: 1

I do perform useful work, but it usually doesn't involve sweating.
However, "sweat" is more of a literary way of saying effort (which I do put in), and most employers don't want to pay for effort. They want to pay for results. If Joe 85-IQ can't do anything cheaper and/or better than a machine can, then his sweat is economically irrelevant. Either he gets a reasonable amount of money for being a human being, or he turns to crime or rioting or voting for populist demagogues or something. There are still jobs for people like Joe, but we may well not have enough, and I really don't think we'll have enough in ten or twenty years. The choice would be providing useless makework, not forcing Joe to work, or shooting Joe.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Abolish Jobs by HBI · 2016-09-16 03:46 · Score: 1

I'd go a little further and take the economics out of it, even. If we don't have anything useful for Joe to do, Joe is going to do things that the human race would find not useful or actively harmful, in some cases. Rebellions and what we'd judiciously consider crime are what I am thinking of. Everyone needs a job that keeps them busy and makes them feel like they are contributing to society or at least their own well-being. Take away that illusion - for in many (most) cases it is an illusion - and the results are not going to be pretty, so we end up shooting Joe for that reason even before we get to economics.
I think the leaders of the world are failing to consider that their responsibility is to preserve that illusion that everyone is working for the benefit of themselves or society out of necessity. This opens Pandora's box. (Though if Pandora were hot, I wouldn't mind that)

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Abolish Jobs by LienRag · 2016-09-16 05:34 · Score: 1

The focus on "the almighty dollar" is actually a focus on "goods and services needed and desired by humans".
While I get your point, you're still wrong. Focus on "the almighty dollar" is actually a focus on calculating everything, and especially transfer of property.
There are certainly situations where there IS a need to calculate transfer of property, basically to ensure that everyone gets his share, but making these calculations the alpha and omega of all human relations is certainly not a law of nature - in many societies family relations are not calculation-based, for example.
Re:Abolish Jobs by swillden · 2016-09-16 05:44 · Score: 1

The focus on "the almighty dollar" is actually a focus on "goods and services needed and desired by humans".
While I get your point, you're still wrong. Focus on "the almighty dollar" is actually a focus on calculating everything, and especially transfer of property. There are certainly situations where there IS a need to calculate transfer of property, basically to ensure that everyone gets his share, but making these calculations the alpha and omega of all human relations is certainly not a law of nature - in many societies family relations are not calculation-based, for example.
You apparently didn't read the last paragraph of my post.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Not a taxi service huh? by sjbe · 2016-09-14 03:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

This blows a HUGE hole in Uber's argument that they aren't a taxi service and shouldn't be regulated as one. They can't argue that self driving cars are independent contractors or that they are merely middlemen facilitating a service with an app.

Re:Not a taxi service huh? by mr_mischief · 2016-09-14 03:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

That somewhat depends on who ends up owning the self-driving cars, doesn't it? If I buy a self-driving car and sign up to be an Uber non-driver who gets paid for the use of my car am I a contractor, an employee (if I don't have to be present how could I be?), or a lessor?
Re:Not a taxi service huh? by NotBornYesterday · 2016-09-14 04:08 · Score: 1

They can call the new service Johnnycab.

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Re:Not a taxi service huh? by npslider · 2016-09-14 04:15 · Score: 2

That's no taxi... It's a TRAP!!
Re:Not a taxi service huh? by ebrandsberg · 2016-09-14 05:08 · Score: 1

They aren't charging for this service when using these cars at this point. They are testing, and the rides are free. Your point is valid in the future however.
Re:Not a taxi service huh? by k6mfw · 2016-09-14 05:22 · Score: 1

Whenever I see articles about Uber, or when people say how they can make good money doing Uber, reminds me of this mention by Chris Johnson below. But with a self-driving car then no opportunity for people the "join the cult."

It's designed to make maximum use of crazy people and force the others to live up to that standard or be fired.
I'll define 'crazy Uber people' not as 'danger to customers', but 'people who are bringing more value in terms of vehicle, skill and desire to please, than they are getting back in pay and benefits'. So the crazy Uber person is the one who keeps buying a new Lexus or whatever, vacuums their car three times a day and busts their ass to outperform all the other Uber drivers, so they can continue to win out over anybody else seeking to be a driver.
The key factor is that they are giving more than they get back, in the belief that they're cornering some kind of market or buying in to something important.
If you make a business that relies on people like this, you can demolish anybody else because you've worked out how to get voluntary unpaid labor, like the Amazon exec who was said to use her own money to hire subcontractors to do more. As long as there are people who are willing to do that, the market breaks and Amazon/Uber get to do what Wal-Mart did in small towns, break the back of other market participants so they can't break even or continue.
Another way to be a crazy Uber person is to put more depreciation and wear and tear on your car than you can afford to repair (or replace). It's easy to be crazy in these ways. It's externalities which are easy to overlook. These Amazon/Uber business models are designed to leverage that kind of crazy as hard as possible, and kick out everybody who's not willing to lose (one way or another) on the deal. Psychology is useful in getting people to buy into this stuff.
As they say, a cult.

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Re:Not a taxi service huh? by ADRA · 2016-09-14 06:00 · Score: 2

If and when this happens, they'll just have a new subsidiary called UberCars who's primary job is to lease cars with door to door car removal. Then Uber (the defacto taxi service) will use that company for their dispatch needs instead of independents to reduce costs. Its pretty dicey to assume independents could survive against a lean mean equivalent service running in massive scale.

--
Bye!
Re: Not a taxi service huh? by easyTree · 2016-09-14 06:00 · Score: 1

They aren't charging for this service when using these cars at this point. They are testing, and the rides are free. Your point is valid in the future however.
It's only free if you consider your time, the use of your brain as uber video you freaking-out to differing degrees as an indicator of driving quality and (let's not forget) your health - to be worthless

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re: Not a taxi service huh? by easyTree · 2016-09-14 06:08 · Score: 2

Yep; well-spotted - this is the business model in use via Slashdot. Content-creators bust their ass to type in snarky comments about iGadgets, US corruption (the word corruption being largely redundant now when discussing things US) etc and that-company-we-all-love leverages their effort to do whatever it is they do to turn a profit.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Not a taxi service huh? by Carewolf · 2016-09-14 12:23 · Score: 1

This blows a HUGE hole in Uber's argument that they aren't a taxi service and shouldn't be regulated as one. They can't argue that self driving cars are independent contractors or that they are merely middlemen facilitating a service with an app.
When have Uber ever cared about being on the rigth side of the law?
Re:Not a taxi service huh? by Gussington · 2016-09-14 17:27 · Score: 2

They aren't taxis, they are merely elevators that move horizontally instead of vertically. Are you claiming that all elevator owners should also have a taxi license?

Reports were false by michaelmalak · 2016-09-14 03:46 · Score: 1

The reports were true.

No, the reports were false, as they said Uber would start at the end of August

A what? by Tablizer · 2016-09-14 03:56 · Score: 1

it became clear that this is not a bid at launching the first fully formed autonomous cars. Instead, this is a research exercise

"Welcome to Guinea Pig Taxi Co., please buckle up."

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:A what? by npslider · 2016-09-14 04:13 · Score: 1

It's a BETA program.
Did Google Buy them?

I wouldn't be able to resist by Vermonter · 2016-09-14 03:58 · Score: 5, Funny

If I were a passenger in a self driving car, I would sit in the back seat and act panicked, banging on the windows with a horrified look on my face while mouthing "help me!", every time we passed another car.

Re:I wouldn't be able to resist by npslider · 2016-09-14 04:11 · Score: 2

"Thank You for using the Uber Johnny Cab!"
Re:I wouldn't be able to resist by Diss+Champ · 2016-09-14 05:40 · Score: 1

You know of course that the next step will be to program arrogance and disdain for human life into the AIs as an expensive optional feature?
Re: I wouldn't be able to resist by easyTree · 2016-09-14 06:19 · Score: 1

I for one welcome with open arms the opportunity to rip the plastic johnny-cab driver torso out and take the wheel.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:I wouldn't be able to resist by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-14 06:37 · Score: 1

They need to get Robert Picardo to do the voice prompts for this thing.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:I wouldn't be able to resist by npslider · 2016-09-14 06:42 · Score: 2

(After the crash)
"Please state the nature of the medical emergency."

Re:Fools by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 03:59 · Score: 1

Only a fool would step into one of these things.

Fortunately if there's one thing the world has plenty of, it's fools.

Uber owns these cars by sjbe · 2016-09-14 04:00 · Score: 1

That somewhat depends on who ends up owning the self-driving cars, doesn't it?

I suppose but Uber clearly owns these ones. Frankly I cannot imagine the insurance cost for a driverless car would be tenable for anyone but a large company like Uber any time soon. You raise some reasonable questions but frankly they are moot. If Uber is actually using driverless cars that they own then they are unambiguously a taxi service. Not that there was ever really any doubt about that fact before to anyone with a functioning brain.

Re:Uber owns these cars by Paradise+Pete · 2016-09-14 04:10 · Score: 2

So what? The whole medallion deal serves to create an artificial scarcity. Once there are no jobs to protect there'll be millions of these on the roads. I can't wait until I no longer need to own and drive a car.
Re: Uber owns these cars by easyTree · 2016-09-14 05:52 · Score: 1

Me either. I can't wait to ride in a car which smells like old pizza and dog farts because the previous customer is a cool guy.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re: Uber owns these cars by ADRA · 2016-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1

Well, as with all things (especially in America), if you want your cake and eat it too, you're going to pay a lot more for the right.

--
Bye!

Winter is coming and I hope the uber CEO is ready by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 04:02 · Score: 1

Winter is coming and I hope the uber CEO is ready for some trail by prison combat in a FPMITA when the auto drive cars start crashing and killing people.

Re:Fools by Paradise+Pete · 2016-09-14 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Only a fool would step into one of these things.

It won't be long until it's the other way around - only a fool would ride with a human driver.

same CMU that messed up the admissions by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 04:05 · Score: 1

same CMU that messed up the admissions and now you want to trust your life to there code?

Breaking News by npslider · 2016-09-14 04:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Uber-bot 54321 has filed a lawsuit against Uber-bot 12345 in federal court today. Uber-bot 54321 claims that Uber-bot 12345 failed to yield at the intersection of Beta Drive and Program Lane. It is still unclear if humans will be on the jury as they are becoming less and less reliable in every-day matters of state.

In other news, Uber-bot OS 10 has been released today leading to scattered reports of biological transport vehicles randomly stopping in the middle of transit lanes. AI developers promise a patch is forthcoming.

Chemical batteries are still overheating world wide, leading some in the Matrix Party to call re-ignite calls for the biological battery initiative to be readdressed in Congress. President Siri has not commented on this.

Turning to weather, the Arctic Tundra is expecting another comfortable day, with High's in the mid 80's...

Re:Winter is coming and I hope the uber CEO is rea by npslider · 2016-09-14 04:12 · Score: 2

I'd wager the AI drivers will STILL drive better than a majority of the human drivers...

Re:Fools by MindStalker · 2016-09-14 04:13 · Score: 1

To be fair, only a fool would hop into the back of the average Taxi Cab. But we often don't have much of a choice.

Obsolete drivers by jenningsthecat · 2016-09-14 04:14 · Score: 1

When a couple of drivers were asked about Uber's push to get cabs drive themselves, they weren't pleased.

Displeased, sure - but I hope to hell they weren't surprised. If they were, they haven't been paying attention, and that wouldn't bode well for their passengers.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.

As expected, to nobody's surprise by hattig · 2016-09-14 04:14 · Score: 1

This was always the endgame for Uber - drivers are costly and aren't available all the time.

Pretty much everyone knew this, I'm sure even the drivers knew this - if they didn't then more fool them.

This is why it's absolutely pointless to even get into the taxi/rideshare business now - there's a few year's left for meat drivers, and after that customers will be saved from human interaction as all the rides drive themselves, and due to not having to pay the meat aspect, the rides will be slightly cheaper - enough to be the obvious choice over the feared-rapey dodgy meat driver anyway :p

Re:Fools by npslider · 2016-09-14 04:16 · Score: 1

I was taught in driver's ed that the two worst drivers on the roads are cops.. and taxi drivers.

Re:Fools by kheldan · 2016-09-14 04:20 · Score: 1

Drivers for Uber needn't worry. So-called 'self-driving, autonomous cars' are not going to be allowed on the roads without a fully educated, trained, qualified, tested, and insured human driver at the full set of traditional vehicle controls, not anytime soon, and there is no such thing as human-level 'artificial intelligence', since we only have some half-baked theories as to how some aspects of our own consciousness and cognition work as of yet, let alone being able to write software to duplicate it, and any so-called 'AI' we have right now are, while clever bits of programming that mimick some aspects of human thought and behavior, are a far cry from being equal or better than a human mind. So no worries.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:Who's in control? by tsqr · 2016-09-14 04:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I thought that self-driving cars still had to have a "driver" in them, ready to take control in the event of of an incident. Are these Uber cars going to come with an Uber "driver", or is the passenger expected to take over when* that incident happens?

What if that passenger does not hold a licence, or is not fit to drive through intoxication? Does the passenger get some sort of discount because they might be expected to step in and do a bit of driving?

* note 'when', not 'if'

RTFA. The passenger will never be expected to take control.

The cars have two Uber engineers in the front seat. The one in the driver's seat has his hands and feet hovering above the steering wheel and pedals, ready to take control as quickly as humanly possible. "Whenever a stopped vehicle blocked an entire lane, he toggled back into manual mode to switch lanes and drive around — an action Uber’s self driving cars will not yet take." The article didn't elaborate, so I'll have to guess that under autonomous control the response to a stopped vehicle blocking an entire lane will be to stop and wait for the stopped vehicle to move on, rather than attempting to change lanes and pass.

Also, from TFA: "You don’t notice how many unexpected incidents occur during a routine drive until you ask a robot to take the wheel." Really? I don't know about you, but I notice a lot of unexpected incidents pretty much every time I get behind the wheel.

Human drivers have some advantages by sjbe · 2016-09-14 04:24 · Score: 1

This was always the endgame for Uber - drivers are costly and aren't available all the time.

Maybe but Uber's current model does have some huge advantages. 1) The pool of potential drivers is huge - basically anyone who owns a car in theory. 2) Uber doesn't have any capital costs when they use a "ridesharing" model. Buying your own taxis and operating them costs a LOT of money. 3) The economics of driverless taxis are still unclear both from a capital investment and from a legal framework standpoint, not to mention insurance costs. 4) Uber has been able to semi-plausibly deny that they are actually a taxi service and thus exempt from regulation as one. This shoots a car sized whole in that argument.

I'm not arguing for or against Uber using driverless cars but merely pointing out that it isn't all upside to Uber or anyone else.

Re:Human drivers have some advantages by AvitarX · 2016-09-14 05:42 · Score: 1

Also, they don't need enough cars to cover peak times 24/7.
The part time driver model allows for extra cars when needed, and the driver uses the car as they see fit the rest of the time.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

Re:Who's in control? by The-Ixian · 2016-09-14 04:30 · Score: 1

I love how they call them engineers...

I am guessing that they are the lowest paid "engineers" ever...

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.

And they chose a "worst case" time to do it! by Bugler412 · 2016-09-14 04:35 · Score: 1

Pittsburgh resident here, they are going to get some tremendous testing data here right now. The level of construction obstruction is at an all time high this year. If it can negotiate this mess, it can handle most any road I've ever travelled on worldwide.

Re:And they chose a "worst case" time to do it! by ebrandsberg · 2016-09-14 05:20 · Score: 1

Not to mention the gridlock due to the Liberty Bridge fire and closure, if they work this week, I'll be impressed.

Re:Fools by kheldan · 2016-09-14 04:35 · Score: 1

You don't realize exactly how little you understand of the subject, do you? Read this and this.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:Fools by Pascoea · 2016-09-14 04:37 · Score: 1

Don't forget about student drivers, and distracted drivers, and aggressive drivers, and people the drive too slow, and people that drive to fast, and people that don't use their turn signal, and road ragers, and... everyone, let's just go with everyone.

I guess it depends on what your metric for "worst" is.

Re:Winter is coming and I hope the uber CEO is rea by geekmux · 2016-09-14 04:39 · Score: 1

I'd wager the AI drivers will STILL drive better than a majority of the human drivers...

And I would wager that no matter what the statistics show, you still won't feel any better about a family member being killed by "autonomous bug #172A"

This is the inherent problem with AI deployment. 40,000 lives are lost every year in the US with human drivers. If that number is reduced by even half, it will be viewed as a resounding success and will be approved by every regulatory agency, with the obvious main difference being bugs and hackers causing deaths on our roadways instead of alcohol or distracted driving today.

What happens when a network attack forces a million AI-controlled vehicles to suddenly act "drunk", injuring or killing countless humans? Will we suddenly (as in overnight) go back to licensing humans to drive cars because NO ONE feels safe to step into an AI car? Bottom line is we need to be very careful in how we embrace this technology. Unfortunately, we've already seen what happens when demand outpaces common sense with IoT "security"...

My new hobby: Trolling so-called 'driverless cars' by kheldan · 2016-09-14 04:41 · Score: 1

o Stand by the side of the road
o Wait for a so-called 'driverless car' to approach
o Walk out into the middle of the road holding up a big 'ROAD CLOSED' sign
o LOL

Will work every time.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:Fools by DarkVader · 2016-09-14 04:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

If by "not anytime soon" you mean "sometime within the next five years" you're right.

This is happening, and it's happening quickly. The AIs that exist now are already better than average human drivers. They will quickly improve to the point that they're better than any human driver. A driving AI doesn't have to be better than a human at everything, it just has to be better than a human at driving. And that's rapidly becoming a solved problem.

It's the chess situation all over again. Lots of people denied that computers would ever be able to beat a grandmaster right up until the point where it happened.

Re:Fools by npslider · 2016-09-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Worst was defined as (in my words) "drivers that feel that due to their postilion of authority and familiarity with the roads, they can all but throw the rules of the road out the window and drive fast, forget the turn signal, tailgate, and drive like it's a full on game of Mario-Kart."

Re:My new hobby: Trolling so-called 'driverless ca by bondsbw · 2016-09-14 05:05 · Score: 2

What do you expect to happen? What would be different with a human driver?

If you think the driver won't call the cops on you, maybe you should consider that the passengers will.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.

Re:My new hobby: Trolling so-called 'driverless ca by bondsbw · 2016-09-14 05:13 · Score: 1

They detect obstacles in the middle of the road, regardless of their ability to comprehend signs.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.

Re:Johnny Cab by k6mfw · 2016-09-14 05:15 · Score: 1

you better be nice and leave a good tip. If you haven't seen the movie, these cabs are programmed to run you down if you leave the cab with a snide remark.

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Re:Fools by Guybrush_T · 2016-09-14 05:18 · Score: 2

You don't realize exactly how little you understand the subject either. All your comments are totally empty and you make absolutely no point.

The improvement of AI technology over the last two-three years made AI better than humans in many fields. Go game is one thing. Driving is another. AI is better at driving as human already, because sight is now as good as human (even better when you add a radar) and reaction time is 100 times lower. Insurance companies won't have a problem, because better driver means less accidents. As of laws ... it seems some states are OK with it.

So please stop trolling and bring real arguments.

self driving cars can hide under an subcontractors by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 05:23 · Score: 1

self driving cars can hide under an system of subcontractors to get out of liability / dump it on some small business unit that has no funds to payout damages in a big crash and no rights to any software / code / logs / etc and in a court case.

court discovery for source code / logs may hit an wall of NDA's / EULA's / etc With an big list of subcontracted firms that all say we are only X and we do not own / run any car service.

Let me be the first to cash-in on... by easyTree · 2016-09-14 05:25 · Score: 1

...being raped by a self-driving car.

--
Requiem for the American Dream

Regional Driving Difference? by asoukup · 2016-09-14 05:27 · Score: 1

Will they be able to handle a "Pittsburgh Left Turn" or will these cars be waiting in the hills to turn left forever?

Re:Regional Driving Difference? by b0bby · 2016-09-14 05:34 · Score: 1

I read that the Pittsburgh left, the bridges, and the winter were all reasons for choosing Pittsburgh.
Re:Regional Driving Difference? by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-14 06:34 · Score: 1

Actually Carnegie Mellon University was the reason they chose Pittsburgh. That is where they got all their employees from.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Beneficial ownership by sjbe · 2016-09-14 05:34 · Score: 1

self driving cars can hide under an system of subcontractors to get out of liability / dump it on some small business unit that has no funds to payout damages in a big crash and no rights to any software / code / logs / etc and in a court case.

A properly motivated judge can bust through that nonsense in no time. There is a well established principle of beneficial ownership and related laws that put the responsibility exactly where it belongs.

Re:Beneficial ownership by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 06:03 · Score: 1

What about NDA's / EULA's?? In a jury trail can they say one of people on the jury works for an competing companies and we can't let them have the code?
Re:Beneficial ownership by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 08:31 · Score: 1

just hope you are not the one with bills racking up as the court are still fighting it out over who will pay your hospital bill.

Re:Fools by networkBoy · 2016-09-14 05:47 · Score: 1

I would love to see an autopilot car in NASCAR.

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

Future review by burtosis · 2016-09-14 06:01 · Score: 1

Instead, this is a research exercise. Uber wants to learn and refine how self driving cars act in the real world. That includes how the cars react to passengers -- and how passengers react to them. "How do drivers in cars next to us react to us? How do passengers who get into the backseat who are experiencing our hardware and software fully experience it for the first time, and what does that really mean?" said Raffi Krikorian, director of Uber ATC.

From an actual customare review later this year:
Well the autonomous driver is pretty bad at giving people the traditional driving hand gestures, but actually quite good at recieving them. I wasn't sure how safe I was or who was actually driving with one guy huddled over the controls like a nervous wreck, but it did seem like whoever was driving was just learning the rules of the road so that, at least, felt familiar.

Re:My new hobby: Trolling so-called 'driverless ca by burtosis · 2016-09-14 06:06 · Score: 1

They detect obstacles in the middle of the road, regardless of their ability to comprehend signs.

One tesla owner who was watching Harry Potter on a portable DVD player instead of hovering over the controls is no longer around to disagree.

Re:Winter is coming and I hope the uber CEO is rea by ADRA · 2016-09-14 06:11 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? A single death will be heralded as the end of the world. All too many journalists play on people's inherent fears. "10 drunks killed themselves last month" has zero resonance because we know humans, we know drunks, we know they do stupid things when they're drunk. We've heard it happening from the day we're born till the day we die. Case closed. But a robotic car? I mean, what's a robotic car all about? How does it work? Will it just randomly run off the road or into other vehicles? Should I trust it to drive without killing me? So many pain points to poke. Give it a couple decades before the knee-jerk fear is assuaged not by facts, but by familiarity.

Crime stats much lower than a couple decades ago, but turn on your TV and see the FUD that keep suburban housewives up at night and her husband's hand on that rifle...

--
Bye!

chess has fixed rules and paths cars do not by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 06:17 · Score: 1

chess has fixed rules and paths cars do not

Re:chess has fixed rules and paths cars do not by DarkVader · 2016-09-14 07:11 · Score: 1

Sure they do. Cars are pretty much stuck in Newtonian physics.
Most of the issues that exist while driving are defined by making guesses about what other things are on the road are going to do. A human has visual and audio and to a much lesser extent tactile cues about that, and makes decisions from those inputs. An AI can have those inputs along with additional data. A human has typically at best a 220 degree field of view. The AI gets 360. It can monitor small cues in every direction to determine what's most likely to happen next and can actually make a better guess than a human, because it can acquire and process more data.

Re:Fools by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-09-14 06:22 · Score: 2

“Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” -- George Carlin

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

what about crimalnal cases with crashs? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 06:30 · Score: 1

what about criminal cases with crashes? that don't go to an civil court?

Re:what about crimalnal cases with crashs? by david_thornley · 2016-09-15 09:25 · Score: 2

Bad driving is typically not criminal, although some bad driving is illegal. There's a difference.. Whatever faults a self-driving car has, they're not likely to be against the law. Some of the things that lead to bad driving (like alcohol) are.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Saw this thing get lost near my office by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-14 06:33 · Score: 1

They test these things near the area where I work. Saw it take a wrong turn at my work's parking log. Was able to make a 3-point turn, presumably on its own. If you are going to teach a car to drive itself, Pittsburgh is a good choice. If you can drive here you can drive anywhere in the US.

However, i live on a one lane dead-end street with parking on both sides and no turn-around bulb. Would be hilarious trying to see it navigate that disaster.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Re:Johnny Cab by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-14 06:52 · Score: 1

I need a number and street.

Re:Fools by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-14 06:52 · Score: 1

I always take special notice when someone driving the same car as me is on the road.

You can imagine my surprise when a grey haired old lady gunned it at an intersection in her Acura RSX. It was the coolest thing I have ever seen.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Re:I'd like to make it more challenging. by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-14 06:54 · Score: 1

Do keep in mind that the self driving cars have cameras in all directions. They will be aware that you are following it around. If you cut one off and cause an accident.... well... I bet that self driving equipment will be pretty expensive for you to replace.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

And when the cars are parked waiting for fares... by Rinikusu · 2016-09-14 06:57 · Score: 1

They'll be playing chess?

(i always see these Eastern European/Russian cab drivers playing chess on the trunk/hood of their cabs while waiting for fares by the Beverly Center in LA. I hear it's not an uncommon thing.)

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Re:Fools by DarkVader · 2016-09-14 07:01 · Score: 1

I'd rather see it in F1. NASCAR is boring.

Re:Fools by DarkVader · 2016-09-14 07:25 · Score: 2

What you don't seem to understand is that it's already there, on public roads now.
It's not decades away. It's already happening.
And it's less than a decade from being a product that you can go buy.
People were scared when elevators stopped having operators too. Sure, elevators are an easy problem, cars are a hard problem.
But when AIs have already driven millions of miles on public roads in traffic, you can't claim that it isn't going to happen without sounding like a crazy person.
And you can't claim that it won't be allowed to happen for decades when it's already being allowed without sounding a bit deranged.

Re:Fools by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-09-14 07:26 · Score: 1

Agreed. Not much of challenge.

Turn left.
Turn left.
Turn left.
Turn left...

A bit more seriously, it would be interesting to see something like this with NASCAR. It'd be like Deep Blue versus Gary Kasparov, except for rednecks.

Re:Fools by Alomex · 2016-09-14 07:39 · Score: 1

The improvement of AI technology over the last two-three years made AI better than humans in many fields.

Driving wasn't solved by the improvements over the last two-three years. The big breakthrough was one of the DARPA competitions about a decade ago. Since then there have been many refinements, but the core of the developments happened there.

Re:My new hobby: Trolling so-called 'driverless ca by squiggleslash · 2016-09-14 07:42 · Score: 2

Teslas are not self driving. The person watching Harry Potter was committing the same error as the RV riders of urban legend who turned on the cruise control on the Interstate and then went into the back to relax.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Fools by jimbolauski · 2016-09-14 08:46 · Score: 1

F1 averages 45 overtakes per race, NASCAR averages 27 lead changes per race and over 1,000 overtakes per race.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make

Re:Fools by dyslexicbunny · 2016-09-14 09:11 · Score: 2

I've been driving for 17 years. If I took all the data from 100 cars run over a year, that's 5 times more experience than me with all kinds of situations. Company analyzes the new data, figures out what updates are needed, and pushes them all out. Imagine 1,000 cars. 10,000. You just can't compete in terms of knowledge.

Re:Fools by flink · 2016-09-14 09:20 · Score: 1

I'm waiting to see a self driving car navigate across Boston during a nor'easter while avoiding all the road cones and lawn chairs strewn around the street. Not to mention navigating around plows, traffic cops, potholes, double-parked cars, dealing with disabled street lights, no visible road markings, pedestrians walking down the middle of the street due to inaccessible sidewalks, and the occasional parade of wild turkeys. All of which I've seen on my daily commute.

It's nice that someone is finally running a test in a location with weather. So far it seems like most of these vehicles are just designed for puttering around southern California or the Nevada desert.

Re:Fools by jcr · 2016-09-14 09:29 · Score: 1

not anytime soon,

I give it about two years or thereabouts. Once there's enough data (say, a couple million hours of operation) to demonstrate that they're safer than most human drivers, the enabling legislation will follow. There's no technical argument against it, just knee-jerking emotion like you're showing here.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:Fools by jcr · 2016-09-14 09:31 · Score: 1

I would love to see an autopilot car in NASCAR.

I would expect an autopilot car to win in NASCAR. It's a far simpler navigation problem than driving on public roads, and winning drivers on the track are those who are most able to stay right at the very limits of the car's performance without blowing tires or engines.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:Fools by jcr · 2016-09-14 09:32 · Score: 1

highways speeds,

Which, given the speed of computing these days, might as well be standing still.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:I'd like to make it more challenging. by jcr · 2016-09-14 09:34 · Score: 1

..and when Uber shows the court that they've seen your car following theirs looking for such opportunities, they get your case thrown out.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:Fools by lgw · 2016-09-14 09:39 · Score: 1

They have very little data less-than-optimal driving conditions, thus far. It's cool that they're finally gather data somewhere other than California - somewhere that gets weather. Two years sounds optimistic.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Re:Winter is coming and I hope the uber CEO is rea by geekmux · 2016-09-14 10:15 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? A single death will be heralded as the end of the world.

And yet it wasn't the end of the world when a Tesla on "autopilot" did it. It wasn't even a financial apocalypse for Tesla. Not even close.

Crime stats much lower than a couple decades ago, but turn on your TV and see the FUD that keep suburban housewives up at night and her husband's hand on that rifle...

If you think crime is in the decline, you're looking at the wrong crime. This isn't 1950 anymore. We live in an electronic world now, with an online society (to include controlling your AI car), and we've proven year after year that an online society is a hacked society because when it comes to the products we rely on every day, revenue trumps security every fucking time.

And no, we won't learn. Not with IoT. Not even with AI. Not until an event large enough (read: millions of lives) occurs.

Re:Fools by kheldan · 2016-09-14 10:31 · Score: 1

Goddamnit.. It is not 'here, now'. What we have 'now' is research vehicles that have to have two engineers/scientists/whatever riding in the thing, hovering over the standard automobile controls in case it fucks up. What we have 'now' is something that can't handle driving on the freeway. What we have 'now' is not available for sale to the public. What we have 'now' is not in any way shape or form ready to be called a 'product', it is just 'research and development'. It is NOT going to be ready in 'FIVE YEARS'. At best in 'FIVE YEARS' we'll have some fancy cruise control that will still mean you have to have a drivers license and can pass all the required tests. You and people like you just bought into the hype and have no idea what you're talking about!

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Safety brief? by SirKron · 2016-09-14 10:32 · Score: 1

We are still being shown how to use seatbelts on airlines. I can only imagine what we will have to listen to before the car starts to move when they become truly autonomous. There might be a five-minute safety brief before you three-minute Uber ride.

Re:My new hobby: Trolling so-called 'driverless ca by Carewolf · 2016-09-14 12:28 · Score: 1

o Stand by the side of the road

o Wait for a so-called 'driverless car' to approach

o Walk out into the middle of the road holding up a big 'ROAD CLOSED' sign

o LOL

Will work every time.

Just put a traffic cone in front of it and walk away.

Now the passenger could get out and remove the traffic cone, but then the car would probably just take off without them, because it is not like they have any real intelligence.

Re:Fools by Gussington · 2016-09-14 17:21 · Score: 1

It won't be long until...

Yeah but how long? A week? A year? 10 years?

Re:Fools by Gussington · 2016-09-14 17:24 · Score: 1

The AIs that exist now are already better than average human drivers.

By what measurement?

Not problems by sjbe · 2016-09-14 23:06 · Score: 1

What about NDA's / EULA's??

What about them? They don't have any weight against a judge ordering the information they are protecting to be produced.

In a jury trail can they say one of people on the jury works for an competing companies and we can't let them have the code?

Easily shown to be a lie in most cases and even if true jurors can be dismissed if they have a conflict of interest. Furthermore the judge can review and potential evidence and decide whether or not it should make it into the trial.

Re:Fools by DarkVader · 2016-09-15 02:44 · Score: 2

"Fancy cruise control" as you call it is already a product, is already in shipping cars, and you can buy it today. It's not five years away. Some currently available mass production cars already have the ability to maintain their lane, change lanes when directed, and maintain speed and distance in traffic. It's not just research and development, it's for sale.

What's going to be here in five years is a product that will take you from point A to point B without you doing anything but telling it where you want to be. Those points will likely not initially be any point in the country, but they will likely be any point within a city that's accessible by city street. Successful research and development leads to products, and by every reasonable measure, the current research and development is very successful, since they're already putting those research and development cars on the public streets.

And since you mention freeways, driving on the freeway is actually the easy part. City streets are a much harder problem, but they're a problem that's also nearly solved.

Please explain why you think I don't know what I'm talking about. Do you think the technology demonstrations have all been faked? Do you have some sort of insider knowledge about it not working that contradicts all the information that's been published about how well these systems work now?

You're declaring it "hype" when anybody paying attention can see it's happening. So please, if you've got something useful to add, do so.

Re:Fools by Coren22 · 2016-09-15 08:03 · Score: 1

Humans handle snow well? Clearly you haven't been on the road when it snows.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Fools by Coren22 · 2016-09-15 08:10 · Score: 1

while avoiding all the road cones and lawn chairs strewn around the street.

I drive a 4wd Tundra, I'd just run them over as it is their problem it is in the street, not mine.

As far as snow navigation, you do realize that most human drivers don't do very good in snow, don't you?

I live in Maryland, every snow storm I drive past about 1 car/mile that is in the ditch while driving on cleared highways, you can't tell me that a computer will do worse at this than most humans.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Fools by Coren22 · 2016-09-15 08:11 · Score: 1

Accidents/fatal accidents per mile.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Fools by Gussington · 2016-09-15 13:02 · Score: 1

Accidents/fatal accidents per mile of an extremely limited sample (ie less than 0.00001%) of driveable areas.

FTFY.
If you want an apples to apples comparison, then get back to me when the robots are exposed to exactly all the same environments and conditions as the humans.

Re:Fools by Coren22 · 2016-09-16 02:47 · Score: 1

You have to start somewhere.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Fools by Toshito · 2016-09-16 08:00 · Score: 1

The AIs that exist now are already better than average human drivers.

Better?

Google's car can't currently do these very simple tasks:

1- drive in pouring rain.
2- drive when it's snowing.
3- drive on unmarked or unpaved roads,
4- drive on roads where markings faded away.(where I live that describe more than 50% of the roads).
5- drive on roads where stop signs, intersections, speed limits and all other information hasn't been recorded before in it's database (it can't read any road signs). Causing trouble when those signs are changed and the database hasn't been updated.
6- drive in contruction zones, where there are temporary rerouting.
7- follow hand signs from a police officer or a construction worker.
8- find a space or even navigate in a parking.
9- anticipate any other driver's or pedestrian behavior (it can't look you in the eye and understand if you've seen it or not).

And you tell me that it's currently BETTER than humans at driving? Yes it's better at certain things, but way worse or even incapable of coping with a lot of other things that are trivial to an average human driver.

--
Try it! Library of Babel

Re:Fools by Gussington · 2016-09-16 20:45 · Score: 1

Of course, but it doesn't mean you can throw around claims like they "are already better", when clearly they aren't

Slashdot Mirror

Uber Starts Self Driving Car Pickups In Pittsburgh (techcrunch.com)

129 of 192 comments (clear)