Slashdot Mirror
Alphabet's Waymo and Intel Are Launching Public Campaigns To Build Trust In Self-Driving Cars (theverge.com)
Alphabet's Waymo and Intel announced plans today to sponsor ads about self-driving cars. "Alphabet's Waymo is launching a public education campaign today called "Let's Talk Self-Driving" aimed at addressing the skepticism many people have about autonomous technology," reports The Verge. Meanwhile, "Intel said it would be airing its commercial starring LeBron James in the run-up to the NBA season opener on October 17th. From the report: The ad campaign will launch first in Arizona, before spreading to other states. Waymo is preparing to launch its first commercial ride-hailing service powered by its self-driving Chrysler Pacifica minivans, according to a recent report in The Information. This public education campaign would appear to be a prelude to inviting ordinary people to take a ride in a driverless vehicle. Both companies recognize that in order to make lots of money, there will need to be a robust effort to persuade people that autonomous vehicles are as safe, if not safer, than human-operated ones. Recent polls suggest that most people wouldn't take a ride in a driverless car, even if they like the idea surrounding the technology.
Trust via ads will go out the window the first accidents happen anyway. Have a good record.
Having famous people promote the cars is a sign
to me that the cars are not reliable.
Companies can't play god with public safety. Build trust by lobbying for increased automation regulation. Enact laws requiring strict safety functionality in all functions, and advertise heavily once you exceed it.
I hope SNL or similar spoofs the shit out of these.
*in all operations
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Form TFS:
aimed at addressing the skepticism many people have about autonomous technology
Even my skepticism resulting from the fact that Google is involved?
Autonomous car makers get the the house to relax nearly all regulations on autonomous cars. Now they want us to just trust them? I don't even trust the senate isn't as well paid off and this will become law.
How about offering a $100m dollar prize payout to each of the first 100 fatalities caused by thier faulty cars. Ohhh, the computer has fancy sensors and can't make math mistakes so it's impossible! Do that and I'd trust them a little.
I AM READY To BELIEVE YOU
Traffic flow is the problem. Self-driving cars will adhere slavishly to every letter of the law, even when it creates traffic havoc. Imagine a self-driving car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a self-driving transport truck doing five kph under the speed limit.
I believe Dennis Leary wrote a song that mentioned a situation much like it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I trust that any self driving car that is truly marketed as such will be very safe. (self driving = allowed nap in back seat) The litigation system will require they are absolutely safe to pedestrians and other drivers. Even google wouldn't have enough to pay all the settlements. As far as how safe it is to the passengers I expect the EULA to be a masterpiece which again would be challenged endlessly if the vehicle was unsafe.
As much as we jest about the law system in the US in this case it is going to help us. The players are so rich that any hint of responsibility for damages will be blood in the water.
I want to see them fail (on their fault) in a current-day environment before I'd even think of trusting them.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
I love watching stuff on youtube on my spare time like this which shows in America at least how gullible religious people are? My point is not anti religion and offtpic but my faith in mankind in general when it comes to thinking and driving safely vs a superior computer that can do trillions of operations per second.
That is why I got into computers in the 1990s. True computers only do what a programmer tells it to do but a machine is far more rational, logical, and can do things in milliseconds rather than tens of seconds and doesn't get road rage or distracted.
I would LOVE self driving cars as a nerd, but also we could cut down on commute time, nap on our way to work or work, and it would reduce fatalities and accidents as humans are not as good as these kinds of things.
http://saveie6.com/
As soon as we have a reasonable mechanism to hold these corporations liable, i.e. one they they would face similar risks as a human driver when their cars kill people, we can talk. So far the number of corporations on death row is zero. I have no moral qualms about ending the continued existence of joint stock company.
How about offering a $100m dollar prize payout to each of the first 100 fatalities caused by thier faulty cars.
How about doing the same for the next 100 fatalities caused by human driven cars? It should all be paid out in about 24 hours.
How about they just simply demonstrate that their cars dont make mistakes? Or is that too hard?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Intel has already put a backdoor into every computer using their processors and is heavily involved in anti-competitive practices. Nobody should trust anything made or said by Intel.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
There's nothing to prove. People readily accept the risk in human driven cars the way it is. The $100m is unnecessary.
...I can't take you to that destination. The government told me not to.
I can't trust anything with a EULA that says it comes with NO WARRANTY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE and contains KNOWN DEFECTS.
If the "software" comes with a insurance policy that pays 1.5M upon failure, no questions asked, than OK.
Otherwise, the only remedy is to sue the other driver, IF they are at fault, and accept a free posthumous upgrade or easter egg.
Before you can regulate you need standards and those standards should actually cover the specifications of automated vehicles and their real world capabilities and how they are promoted. First up detection capabilities should be fully publicised and 3D image maps of what they can detect and how far they can detect it, what the detection cycles are and the standards it has been tested under and the validity and completeness of those test ie what the vehicle can see and how it sees it and what independent tests have been carried out to confirm the truth of the claims.
Then you have vehicle action processing capability, how it can react to what it sees, how it processes it, what some important decision trees are, will it purposefully run down a person in order to preserve value in the vehicle and the safety of the occupant ie an imminent collision with another vehicle, the only evasive action is through a bunch of pedestrians but it is much safer to run them down for the vehicles passenger, than to take the impact with the other vehicle (so a vehicle might be designated as a zero evasive action, breaking only and always adhering to road traffic rules regardless of consequence for the passenger).
A lot of automated vehicle rules should not be a matter of convenience for profit first corporations but standards and regulations approved by the public and their representatives ie to illegally evade a collision or to take the impact and stay within the law and that coding should be audited to ensure it complies no bloody secrets with vehicle automation.
The other big thing is remote control vs localised control, whether or not the vehicle owned by the individual can be remotely controlled by the corporation, keep in mind servicing laws for automated vehicles will end up being compulsary and extremely highly priced and profitable, don't pay and the remote control vehicle wont go, price to change oil $1,000, change computer 50% of vehicle price, the sky is the limit. All automated vehicles will only be able to be serviced or repaired by the original manufacturer with massively inflated profit margins, else lose the warranty on automation, instantly and as a bonus the car simply stops where it is and requires towing to an manufacturer authorised location.
Watch, they will want to ban bicycles because they are not remotely controlled and they cause problems for automated vehicles, and why have them, a child can climb into an automated vehicle and be taken where the corporation wants to take them. More than public safety, this is an issue of total control over your movements. The corporations don't want you to go somewhere and you will be walking and likely get run down by an automated vehicle.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
like lebron would risk *everything* riding in a self driving car with no manual overrides, even if it was insured to cover that insane liability and the insurer vetted and approved the tech.
the tech ain't *that* ready, fuck, it'll be 30-50 years, at least.
Does anyone really believe that they wouldn't use the same political bias they use in the rest of their products in their autonomous cars? Funny thing about trust, when you burn it for one thing, it stays burned for others.
Self driving cars may work reliably on highways but they'll have problems on rural roads and cities. And when the computer gets confused and the car parks itself does the owner have to call a human driven tow truck, or the police or walk?
Vision is not the same as perception and it takes intelligence to drive a car safely in ALL conditions.
saying we will cover you in court is a better way.
be by saying we are liable for civil stuff and if there happens to be a criminal case we will cover your costs + bail if needed.
They should include the Government. Heck, EVERYONE trusts those losers. If want something to fail as this will then include the biggest generation of losers in the history of this country. Well,other than the millennials that are to come. They are only interested in playing games and pleasuring themselves.
$400 to install an 500GB hdd at dealer when the stock 250GB one is to small for the map data and you must take att with there $15 a gig Canadian data pack
real school zones not for profit ones that drop 45 down to 20 a on a main road where the school has a traffic light and big parking lot with an side walks that are far off the road.
I am leading a coalition to urge lawmakers to require more thorough testing (something small like 10-20 years) before these cars are out on public roads
they don't enforce the 55 on the IL tollways!
I will do as the president does.
...especially supposedly technically knowledgeable people who are supposedly future-oriented. Here we are on the threshold of a revolutionary transformation in how transportation occurs and what I'm seeing so far here is an amalgam of: who can we sue when/if something fails?!?; it'll NEVER work 100% of the time! (omitting how shitty our current methodology scores); we need Standards(TM) first!! (ignoring how technology evolves); etc. Damn, just when I thought things could not get worse for America.
Where I live in Scottsdale, Arizona, I have seen these several self driving vehicles almost every day depending on my route. These vehicles seem fairly common now. I have seen vehicles from several manufacturers and Uber. The vehicles usually have noticeable devices mounted on top of the vehicle.
These vehicles seem fairly common now. I ride a bicycle for approximately 36 miles per day. Most of the route has bicycle lanes. I am usually going slower than motor vehicle traffic except near intersections. On unusual behavior I have seen for these vehicle is for them to slow down to the speed I am riding on a bicycle, fifteen to twenty miles per hour on a road with a thirty five MPH speed limit. I have also seen the self driving vehicles slow down and stop in the middle of the road as I am riding nearby on a bicycle.
I can't believe some of the comments here, let me summarize...
Self driving cars are no good because: ....
1. I hate Google, Google does bad stuff, therefore driverless cars are no good
2. I hate Intel, Intel does bad stuff, therefore driverless cars are no good
3. Google using sports celebrities in advertisements, therefore driverless cars are no good
4. Google needs to prove their beta technology (it's been in development for 8 years), where did the poster get this information? therefore driverless cars are no good
5. Congress passes specific legislation on driverless cars, therefore they are no good
6. And I love this one.., driverless cars will follow the law, therefore they are no good
Wow, what a bunch of Luddites. Well at least some of us actually believe in the future of technology...
Individuals figure out things like:
;) lol I have dated myself ;)
- They are mobile billboards for your tagging prowess and skills.
- And don't forget the videos screwing with them, so one can get that 15 minutes of fame online.
Everyone does recall what Phone Booths in urban areas looked like! OOPS right
Thus with great fanfare and childish hope did mankind embark on the path to its own annihilation.
Vechicle-to-vehicle communications + all systems on one computer/bus + hacking = worms which wardrive themselves. Even if that gets locked down, we'll still have DoS attacks that cause all cars in range to slam on the brakes.
Disclaimer: I'm excited about self-driving vehicles and will go out of my way to buy one once available, despite my fears.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Self-driving cars don't need to be perfectly safe.
They just need to be safer than cars with human drivers.
I thought "I don't believe that crash rate", so I looked it up.
An average of 102 car fatalities per day in USA in 2016.
I'm impressed.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Can anyone tell me what operating system they are using to build the brains for self-driving cars? When are we going to see some legitimate specs? I mean it is fine if they are running Linux on a commodity motherboard, but there are going to be cameras and sensors hooked up to the thing and you would think they would show a little of how that technology works, even if the software and some of the hardware is proprietary. How can we possibly trust self-driving cars when they are regarded as magical technology? No one is talking about the details.
Your data, and your lives, are safe with us. Like, totally.
Sincerely, Alphabet and Equifax.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Guess what? If the goal is to make cars safer, we don't need self-driving cars at all - we just need to enforce the laws and regulations that are already in place. A total crackdown on driving under the influence, a total crackdown on driving cars that have not been properly maintained. This would require a radical transformation of our society, of course. Driving would no longer be considered a personal luxury. it would no longer be something you could do for fun, it would be a serious task. We would all be responsible for everything that happens on the road.
None of this is going to happen, of course. We want to believe in a fairy tale of magical chariots that will take us where we want to go, without the unpleasantness of having to enslave actual humans in the form of taxi drivers. If we want it, we will have to pay the costs one way or another, and the social costs are far too great at this point - driving represents human independence, it is an expression of freedom.
Yeah, because computer vision and artificial intelligence are solved problems, despite all the evidence to the contrary!
Wonder how many will die before they're taken back off the road...
"we just need to enforce the laws and regulations that are already in place. "
the naivety is strong. Have you ever actually driven on public roads? This is practically impossible and still would not make driving safe. You can't regulate against stupid decisions and slow reaction times.
I can pay that sum for every fataly if you pay me equal sum for each prevented death. Which means that if robots kill less than humans I will profit.
Not with 30K dead on the consciousness of the public.
Police will drag your old fart asses from your cars and take away your licenses.
Local governments will start putting screws on driving tests, so it will be easier for you to get a spaceship pilot license than driving a 2000 pound gorilla.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Oh look .... lies from social engineering companies...shocking. Self driving cars is not about tech. Its about removal of private ownership of transportation. Its about central control of a key aspect of freedom - freedom of movement. This is the marxist left at its best.
Raw, base line marketing. Albeit, for a better "consumer experience".
Your sig here!
Snake oil salemanship
I use Google Maps, primarily to detect traffic jams and such ... which is a good thing, because much of the time it doesn't even actually start up before I'm halfway there. Then it's behind a few turns for awhile, telling me to make turns I already made.
This is when it's not thinking I'm on a completely different road (like a frontage road).
If it were driving my car? Holy #$%^.
(Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot for thinking that Google's navigation product would be anything like ... Google's navigation product.)
Yes, you can trust these self-driving cars. You won't lose your driving job, we promise! We won't crash the economy because huge numbers of drivers will lose their jobs. We promise!
Having famous people promote the cars is a sign to me that the cars are not reliable.
The problam is that *you* is not *the general population*.
Us /.ers, given our tendencies, will tend to be over-obsessed with facts, logic, etc. compared to average joe six pack.
On the other hand, random everyday people tend to fall in for quite a lot of social cognitive bias. And if they see a celebrity endorsing something, they'll unconsciously give it more positive attention (there must be something good to it if ${celebrity} endorse it, ${celebrity} must have seen something positive in it).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
When they pay money for the service of being driven by automation, they will think much differently.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Considering that Americans drive over 8.8 billion miles a day, I find it not that impressive at all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
^
That's split among about 250 million drivers, BTW.
So, 250,000,000 people traveling over 8,800,000,000 miles, and 102 die during the process. Doesn't seem all that onerous once you plug in all the figures.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
This is actually my only real problem with the cars they're showcasing right now. If there's no manual override, then you can't consider the car "reliable transportation".
Exactly. Technology aside, I want to see the liability agreement. If Google says, "We're 100% liable for all harm caused by or insufficiently avoided by our vehicle when the vehicle is in 100% autonomous mode," I'll consider trusting them. Until then, they don't even trust the tech themselves.
Good marketing falls into one of the following categories:
Problem with X? Use Product Y!
Product Y: Better at X than other products!
And the always-favorite: Product X: Apply directly to the Y!
What they all have in common is getting your name out there to people who may be looking for it, and occassionally telling people about a need they didn't know they had. This could be that, or it could be an airline telling potential customers that it's 10 times less crash-and-burn-y than the competition. Self-driving cars seem like a solution to a non-existent problem for the average person. That's the barrier to cross more than anything else right now.
Why would you call the police in that situation?
Btw. You are connected to the operator like in elevator. They will help you.
Computers cannot tell the difference between simulating something and doing it for real. They can't tell the difference between running application software or sitting idle. Computers can't even tell the difference between being switched on or switched off. They are equipment.
A computer will never comprehend the true value of a human life or even understand what's at stake if a human being entrusts his or her life to it.
Therefore, there is NO WAY IN HE WORLD that autonomous vehicles will ever be safe. The accidents have already started. As the fatalities pile up, all the computers will do is display error codes, display blue screens of death, or say "Uh oh" like in Disney's "Big Hero 6".
I'm a 52 year old programmer who knows better. We cannot trust anything important, like lives, to computers. Computers are really nice for a variety of reasons and they offer lots of conveniences but they cannot be trusted, especially with the deplorable state of software in the world. Special thanks to Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, and others. While we're at it, STOP FLYING ON AIRBUS AIRCRAFT for the same reasons.
Finally, please Please PLEASE stop presenting autonomous cars to governments as a new front for their war against individual freedom by discouraging driving. Now you kids get off my lawn and take your AI bullshit with you.