You gathered wrong - the amount of money thrown at this problem by all entrants in the market is, for each of them, substantial with almost nothing to show for it. Uber threw as much money at th problem as most of the others.
Mozilla seems hellbent[1] on getting a trophy in each of the degrees of hell. They're so busy making themselves irrelevant that not advertising on facebook would barely register. Pity. They had a good browser once.
That's a different argument because sexual orientation is a protected class. If the message was purely political they could refuse quite legally.
It's not different, it's still compelled speech. When you compel someone to produce and publish a message that they do not agree with, it is evil.
The problem is that dimwitted morons like yourself are totally okay with compelling someone to produce and public speech you agree with because you believe the ends justify the means.
Take a good, long hard look at yourself - you're openly supporting compelled speech; do not be surprised if someone compels you to produce or publish speech you disagree with.
1 (not 2) confirmed fatal accidents in somewhere around a billion miles with it on says otherwise.
Bullshit: there are next to no miles of self-driving tested. There are around a billion miles of AI+corrections from attentive human.
You've been told this is bullshit before and yet you still persist. What are you? A slow learner? Can you not understand the difference between "Algorithm continuously corrected by a human" and "algorithm with no human input"?
But just seeing the bike in 2 seconds doesn't make it the vehicle's fault.
Actually it does, you should not be driving faster than the length of your visibility. In the video shown visibility was apparently 24m - a human would have been doing 5mph, not 38mph.
Exactly what I expected to see....
Someone walking a bike.
At night.
No streetlights.
No backlighting at all.
Wearing black top and dark pants.
With no lights at all on the bike.
No lights on the person.
Not in a crosswalk.
Apparently not looking.
About 2 seconds of visibility.
The pedestrian is almost 100% wrong in every possible way. I don't see how this could be ANY human driver's fault, had a human been driving. As for autonomous, I guess it depends on what sensors. Could their system have had an infrared camera or other sensor that could have seen the wreckless pedestrian sooner than was evident in [human] visible light? That would have been nice. But does that make the pedestrian less at fault? I think not.
So, when you have 2 seconds of visibility you run into almost stationary objects in the middle of the road? When you have 2 seconds of visibility, and you do 38mph, do you blame the objects you run into in the middle of road for not being visible?
If you are driving a car you don't get to use the excuse of poor visibility - you are supposed to reduce your speed to match the visibility.
That's part of the crazy thing.... she was pushing a bike, radar should have seen her too.
LIDAR should always see pedestrians, easy. But when you're pushing a bike - large object made of interconnecting angular metal structures - across the road, it should be a glowing beacon to radar.
I don't know what sort of junk system Uber has implemented, but it clearly should not be allowed on the road without an audit.
How do you audit a neural net? There is no algorithm to verify. All you can do is chuck inputs at it and see what outputs results. Presumably they've already done that during testing.
The scariest part is that the pedestrian does not react to the car at all before being struck.
I think the woman must have been very confident that the car would have seen her and stopped.
That's because a human driver would have seen her and swerved. She was more than halfway across the lane, after all. I've missed many pedestrians in similar conditions and similar positions in the lane. Lots of people have.
I think that more people are becoming aware of how its almost essentially impossible to discharge student loan debt and that even if you're getting a discount, paying back $80,000 in loans when you have a degree that isn't going to guarantee an ability to pay that back anytime soon is a losing proposition.
It's an education; they shouldn't have used a loan to pay for a useless degree.
If all the data, as you requested, would be public, of course it would contain trade secrets.
And if they want to keep it secret then they can test on their own roads. They only have to show us the data if they want to use our roads for testing.
All I am advocating for is fair and consistent treatment.
And you can get that by keeping everybody's salary secret. Whether or not it bothers you is irrelevant - some people are bothered by it.
In other words, it is a problem for some people, so why do you want to extend the problem to cover everyone instead of the more reasonable "it's a problem, let's do away with it"?
You aren't interested in making things equal by giving rights to those who don't have them, you are interested in making things equal by removing rights from those who have them.
In case you hadn't noticed, normal people (centrists, we call them) find that sort of thinking abhorrent.
I'm all for granting rights, opportunities and privileges to those who don't have them; I will not support the removing of rights, opportunities and privileges from those who currently have them.
(Learn the word "abhorrent". You will hear it often)
Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.
I never got that. "We don't like the way the DNC sucks corporate cock, so we'll skip the middle man and do it ourselves". Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.
You're commenting on politics again? After you were so hilariously off-the-mark with your previous thoughts on Brexit and Trump?
After all the doom-and-gloom predictions and "Trump is the new Hitler" and "He'll start WW3", you must have some huge cojones to be making observations on a system you previously deomonstrated an unerringly lack of insight into.
The economy hasn't crashed due to Brexit or Trump. You claimed it would. I see you have learned your lesson, in a way - you aren't making any more claims that can be verified in the future, you're simply insulting the clear majority of people who politely and quietly disagreed with you.
The province where I work has mandated that all university employees paid over a certain amount must have their salaries publicly disclosed because they are, at least partly, publicly funded. While I don't have a problem with this per se I think it is unfair to single out those of us working at universities. This rule should also apply to all companies who accept government contracts too since, by extension, their salaries are also being paid for, at least in part, by government money.
So, you think it's a disadvantage to have to disclose salaries, but instead of taking away the requirement to disclose you want to extend it to other places?
IOW, instead of remedying the problem so that everyone is equal you want to extend the problem so that everyone is equal?
Are you a supporter of affirmative action, by any chance? A hillary supporter? A self-described SJW?
All true...However it will take a couple of company busting lawsuits to stop the hype and inject some reality into the public.... and this will likely be the first.
Comparing "SDC that is continuously corrected by a driver" with "drivers" is incorrect. And stupid. But also incorrect. All we know from your link is that "SDCs+aware and monitored human driver" has better statistics than "unmonitored human driver".
SDCs have never been proven safer than humans because they have never driven without a human chaperone to correct the errors.
The other problem is that all the SDC companies are using the same basic technology. Assuming that their ANNs get a fully representative set of training data, all the end-results would be the same.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I gathered it is a budget alternative.
You gathered wrong - the amount of money thrown at this problem by all entrants in the market is, for each of them, substantial with almost nothing to show for it. Uber threw as much money at th problem as most of the others.
There are degrees in hell too.
Mozilla seems hellbent[1] on getting a trophy in each of the degrees of hell. They're so busy making themselves irrelevant that not advertising on facebook would barely register. Pity. They had a good browser once.
[1] See what I did there? :-)
Compelled speech is the lesser evil.
Who's a fascist now?
And lots have hit them as well, but that doesn't exactly make first page.
What's your point? That the best SDC can measure up to a drunken inattentive poor driver?
That's a different argument because sexual orientation is a protected class. If the message was purely political they could refuse quite legally.
It's not different, it's still compelled speech. When you compel someone to produce and publish a message that they do not agree with, it is evil.
The problem is that dimwitted morons like yourself are totally okay with compelling someone to produce and public speech you agree with because you believe the ends justify the means.
Take a good, long hard look at yourself - you're openly supporting compelled speech; do not be surprised if someone compels you to produce or publish speech you disagree with.
1 (not 2) confirmed fatal accidents in somewhere around a billion miles with it on says otherwise.
Bullshit: there are next to no miles of self-driving tested. There are around a billion miles of AI+corrections from attentive human.
You've been told this is bullshit before and yet you still persist. What are you? A slow learner? Can you not understand the difference between "Algorithm continuously corrected by a human" and "algorithm with no human input"?
So you feel that you have a right to be on popular platforms, even if they don't want your content?
What other platforms does this extend to?
Bakeries.
But just seeing the bike in 2 seconds doesn't make it the vehicle's fault.
Actually it does, you should not be driving faster than the length of your visibility. In the video shown visibility was apparently 24m - a human would have been doing 5mph, not 38mph.
Exactly what I expected to see.... Someone walking a bike. At night. No streetlights. No backlighting at all. Wearing black top and dark pants. With no lights at all on the bike. No lights on the person. Not in a crosswalk. Apparently not looking. About 2 seconds of visibility.
The pedestrian is almost 100% wrong in every possible way. I don't see how this could be ANY human driver's fault, had a human been driving. As for autonomous, I guess it depends on what sensors. Could their system have had an infrared camera or other sensor that could have seen the wreckless pedestrian sooner than was evident in [human] visible light? That would have been nice. But does that make the pedestrian less at fault? I think not.
So, when you have 2 seconds of visibility you run into almost stationary objects in the middle of the road? When you have 2 seconds of visibility, and you do 38mph, do you blame the objects you run into in the middle of road for not being visible?
If you are driving a car you don't get to use the excuse of poor visibility - you are supposed to reduce your speed to match the visibility.
That's part of the crazy thing.... she was pushing a bike, radar should have seen her too.
LIDAR should always see pedestrians, easy. But when you're pushing a bike - large object made of interconnecting angular metal structures - across the road, it should be a glowing beacon to radar.
I don't know what sort of junk system Uber has implemented, but it clearly should not be allowed on the road without an audit.
How do you audit a neural net? There is no algorithm to verify. All you can do is chuck inputs at it and see what outputs results. Presumably they've already done that during testing.
Tesla has video (8 cameras), radar (up to 160M), and long-distance (8M) ultrasonic sensors.
Sensors mean shit if the software is not up to it. The software is not up to it.
Right-of-way doesn't make it legal, it's still jaywalking.
Jaywalking doesn't mean that the driver doesn't have to brake or swerve.
The scariest part is that the pedestrian does not react to the car at all before being struck.
I think the woman must have been very confident that the car would have seen her and stopped.
That's because a human driver would have seen her and swerved. She was more than halfway across the lane, after all. I've missed many pedestrians in similar conditions and similar positions in the lane. Lots of people have.
I think that more people are becoming aware of how its almost essentially impossible to discharge student loan debt and that even if you're getting a discount, paying back $80,000 in loans when you have a degree that isn't going to guarantee an ability to pay that back anytime soon is a losing proposition.
It's an education; they shouldn't have used a loan to pay for a useless degree.
It would be acceptable to teach the works of dead white men once more.
And to think I share a demographic with this worm. Man the fuck up and stop being such a whiny little bitch.
To be honest, you're an embarrasment to any demographic unfortunate enough to have you. Your views, in general, are repulsive and primitive.
There is no place for outdated views like yours. You're already a minority.
The algorithms are hardcoded.
Incorrect.
No, Child Porn conviction requires "knowingly possessing."
And now they know. If, after they know, they keep their copy of the blockchain, then they are knowingly possessing.
If all the data, as you requested, would be public, of course it would contain trade secrets.
And if they want to keep it secret then they can test on their own roads. They only have to show us the data if they want to use our roads for testing.
All I am advocating for is fair and consistent treatment.
And you can get that by keeping everybody's salary secret. Whether or not it bothers you is irrelevant - some people are bothered by it.
In other words, it is a problem for some people, so why do you want to extend the problem to cover everyone instead of the more reasonable "it's a problem, let's do away with it"?
You aren't interested in making things equal by giving rights to those who don't have them, you are interested in making things equal by removing rights from those who have them.
In case you hadn't noticed, normal people (centrists, we call them) find that sort of thinking abhorrent.
I'm all for granting rights, opportunities and privileges to those who don't have them; I will not support the removing of rights, opportunities and privileges from those who currently have them.
(Learn the word "abhorrent". You will hear it often)
Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.
I never got that. "We don't like the way the DNC sucks corporate cock, so we'll skip the middle man and do it ourselves". Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.
You're commenting on politics again? After you were so hilariously off-the-mark with your previous thoughts on Brexit and Trump?
After all the doom-and-gloom predictions and "Trump is the new Hitler" and "He'll start WW3", you must have some huge cojones to be making observations on a system you previously deomonstrated an unerringly lack of insight into.
The economy hasn't crashed due to Brexit or Trump. You claimed it would. I see you have learned your lesson, in a way - you aren't making any more claims that can be verified in the future, you're simply insulting the clear majority of people who politely and quietly disagreed with you.
The province where I work has mandated that all university employees paid over a certain amount must have their salaries publicly disclosed because they are, at least partly, publicly funded. While I don't have a problem with this per se I think it is unfair to single out those of us working at universities. This rule should also apply to all companies who accept government contracts too since, by extension, their salaries are also being paid for, at least in part, by government money.
So, you think it's a disadvantage to have to disclose salaries, but instead of taking away the requirement to disclose you want to extend it to other places?
IOW, instead of remedying the problem so that everyone is equal you want to extend the problem so that everyone is equal?
Are you a supporter of affirmative action, by any chance? A hillary supporter? A self-described SJW?
But you are for giving up trade secrets of companies?
They don't have to give up their trade secrets, they can test on their private roads.
There is no self driving car I'm aware of that uses an ANN ...
According to your awareness, what are they using to learn on the training data?
All true...However it will take a couple of company busting lawsuits to stop the hype and inject some reality into the public.... and this will likely be the first.
AI Winter V2.0
(Or, we;ve seen these AI promises before.)
Wrong. And is is just one company's stats. https://medium.com/waymo/waymo...
Comparing "SDC that is continuously corrected by a driver" with "drivers" is incorrect. And stupid. But also incorrect. All we know from your link is that "SDCs+aware and monitored human driver" has better statistics than "unmonitored human driver".
SDCs have never been proven safer than humans because they have never driven without a human chaperone to correct the errors.
The other problem is that all the SDC companies are using the same basic technology. Assuming that their ANNs get a fully representative set of training data, all the end-results would be the same.