Well, you can blame the autonomous vehicle company for not using hardware that will give the software enough data to process so that it results in a safe driver. That is the equivalence of allowing grandma to drive after she can no longer see properly from cataracts. You can also blame the company for not correctly interpreting the data from the hardware, which is the equivalent of allowing grandma to drive after she develops serious Alzheimer's.
It would be one thing if these companies didn't already know their cars have certain flaws. But the fact is, they know they have vast weaknesses and put them out on the road anyway.
This isn't about capitalism, this is about a company using an app to game capitalism in their favor. You could outlaw AirBnB and still have fair capitalism. These kinds of downsides are what come when capitalism is not regulated correctly.
The thing I don't understand is, how do the self driving companies not know about these flaws? So far the scenarios with people killed seem so easy to test in a closed environment.
My point is that these things can happen at any time, in many varying situations, and autonomous cars will need to deal with them to be equivalent to a human. It doesn't really matter where they are driving.
GASP... who would have thought driving was actually hard for a computer to do? Maybe they can keep paying attention EXCEPT when it comes to concrete barriers, or backing up trucks, or pedestrians in the street. But millions of cycles a second means nothing if they're not successfully driving with them.
My wife was taking care of the neighbors dog and it bolted out the door, down the driveway, and out to the road. The dog could not be seen by the car because of snow banks by the side of the road. The accident was avoided because the car saw my wife jumping up and down back in front of the house and waving so it stopped.
Trust me, the car is perfectly capable of seeing options you as a driver cannot
That's the opposite of what the problem is. The backing up truck in Vegas, the woman cyclist, the concrete barrier... why can they NOT see things that people can clearly see? Don't use the excuse that *sometimes* people don't see them either; because people can be distracted, and these cars aren't supposed to be.
You are not taking into consideration that the Leaf has a much lower range than the Tesla S and is therefore less useful. Pretty amazing that they have kept up.
Unless Facebook can demonstrate how they have restrictions in place for keeping employees away from personal production data, you have to assume all Facebook employees are stalking. They should also explain how 'this' employee had to do a convoluted end-run around the procedures. There is no in between.
What's the point now? They didn't listen when people were running around in the beginning saying what a bad idea this was, giving so much information to one company. They wait until Facebook gets too big to control before they realize "Oh, this is a bad thing". Perhaps they realized it before and this is all just a smoke screen to look like they are trying to do something, while they quietly accept Facebook donations in their back pocket.
Anyone with a drivers license knows how 99% of cars work and think they know how 100% of cars work. The onus is on the company who makes a different car, and the owner of the different car, to make sure everyone driving that car understands that they don't know how *this* car works.
So... you're making the case that the Tesla saw the barrier yet still thought it was a good idea to drive into it? This gets better and better.
Ok well let's dig deeper into your articles:
Waymo has logged over two million miles on U.S. streets and has only had fault in one accident, making its cars by far the lowest at-fault rate of any driver class on the road
Considering they choose where and when to drive, I should hope that they have a low fault rate. This only proves they chose safe places to drive that the car could handle. It is the human in the car keeping it safe. No where does it say that the car can drive on it's own for two million miles so the comment is not addressing autonomy at all.
I won't go into the NHSTA report, except to say that they didn't compare like for like. They should be comparing the safety of Teslas to the safety of other $80K+ luxury vehicles but they do not, they compare it to all vehicles. Many of the cars they used in the study to represent safety of Autopilot didn't even have Autopilot miles logged.
What part was made up? The fact that current automated cars have safety drivers? The fact that Waymo may be able to drive around 3500 miles without an interaction in limited circumstances, but humans drive around 37,000 miles without accidents in any environment? I'm really confused what part you think is made up. Maybe that's just how you make arguments.
Nonsense, there are safety measures in place for stupid people everywhere. Coffee heated only to a certain temperature, toasters that come with 'do not submerge' warnings. Not all stupid can be anticipated but Tesla could at least make an effort.
Part of the problem is that the owners may even be responsible enough to understand the limitations of Autopilot, but will they give a full training session when they hand the keys to their kid? Do they even know that they have Autopilot and need to explain it to their kid? If they are falling down drunk one night and someone else needs to drive them home, will the driver be fully familiar with the car?
Well, there are no self driving cars, they all have humans in them, so I'm sorry you wasted your time with those stats you think are on automated vehicles. There is an entire list of issues with the NHSTA study with regards to it's suitability to make any comment on the safety of Autopilot; it does not draw that conclusion because the sample wasn't right to draw that conclusion and it was likely a Tesla media spin. Even if they *are* actually safer in the environment they currently drive, that says nothing about how they will ever do in the truly dangerous environments where people die and insurance companies end up paying out, such as in extreme weather conditions.
The fact is, if a person is too blind to see a brightly colored concrete divider in the road you don't let them drive because you don't know what will happen. Autopilot is the same blind person yet we encourage it to drive. It just defies logic.
You keep trying to side track the conversation. Humans aren't legally allowed on the road unless they can see things like that. Why is Autopilot allowed to drive a human if it cannot. An 82-year old grandpa with cataracts cannot see well enough to drive, therefore they cannot legally touch the steering wheel of a moving vehicle, period. It doesn't matter if the person in the next seat has full driving controls with an instructors license and a race car certification. Why is a technology being allowed to drive if it cannot see what it is in front of it, like an 82-year old grandpa? What many other flaws are they hiding under the guise of 'intellectual property' and why does the public have a right to know? How long do they get away with "oops, I guess we'll fix it now" AFTER someone has died for their mistake? Human driving is very safe if you consider the 3.2 *trillion* miles driving in the US every year. Much safer than Autopilot would be if it were to drive everywhere and in all conditions like a human.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can blame the autonomous vehicle company for not using hardware that will give the software enough data to process so that it results in a safe driver. That is the equivalence of allowing grandma to drive after she can no longer see properly from cataracts. You can also blame the company for not correctly interpreting the data from the hardware, which is the equivalent of allowing grandma to drive after she develops serious Alzheimer's.
It would be one thing if these companies didn't already know their cars have certain flaws. But the fact is, they know they have vast weaknesses and put them out on the road anyway.
This isn't about capitalism, this is about a company using an app to game capitalism in their favor. You could outlaw AirBnB and still have fair capitalism. These kinds of downsides are what come when capitalism is not regulated correctly.
The thing I don't understand is, how do the self driving companies not know about these flaws? So far the scenarios with people killed seem so easy to test in a closed environment.
My point is that these things can happen at any time, in many varying situations, and autonomous cars will need to deal with them to be equivalent to a human. It doesn't really matter where they are driving.
It shouldn't be called the gig economy, it should be called the "I got mine" economy. I'm also partial to the "screw you" economy.
Oh yes by all means, go regression test THE ENTIRE WORLD.
GASP... who would have thought driving was actually hard for a computer to do? Maybe they can keep paying attention EXCEPT when it comes to concrete barriers, or backing up trucks, or pedestrians in the street. But millions of cycles a second means nothing if they're not successfully driving with them.
....humans rarely break in that fashion.
My wife was taking care of the neighbors dog and it bolted out the door, down the driveway, and out to the road. The dog could not be seen by the car because of snow banks by the side of the road. The accident was avoided because the car saw my wife jumping up and down back in front of the house and waving so it stopped.
Trust me, the car is perfectly capable of seeing options you as a driver cannot
That's the opposite of what the problem is. The backing up truck in Vegas, the woman cyclist, the concrete barrier... why can they NOT see things that people can clearly see? Don't use the excuse that *sometimes* people don't see them either; because people can be distracted, and these cars aren't supposed to be.
You are not taking into consideration that the Leaf has a much lower range than the Tesla S and is therefore less useful. Pretty amazing that they have kept up.
It would have even stood for 'economy'
Really? And going with the model 'E' would have been just to obvious I suppose.
Welcome to this article. Kool-aid is being served.
Unless Facebook can demonstrate how they have restrictions in place for keeping employees away from personal production data, you have to assume all Facebook employees are stalking. They should also explain how 'this' employee had to do a convoluted end-run around the procedures. There is no in between.
I run a small operation and usually try to find the $50 SSL certificate so I can keep going for another year. What does this mean for me?
What's the point now? They didn't listen when people were running around in the beginning saying what a bad idea this was, giving so much information to one company. They wait until Facebook gets too big to control before they realize "Oh, this is a bad thing". Perhaps they realized it before and this is all just a smoke screen to look like they are trying to do something, while they quietly accept Facebook donations in their back pocket.
Anyone with a drivers license knows how 99% of cars work and think they know how 100% of cars work. The onus is on the company who makes a different car, and the owner of the different car, to make sure everyone driving that car understands that they don't know how *this* car works.
Ok well let's dig deeper into your articles:
Waymo has logged over two million miles on U.S. streets and has only had fault in one accident, making its cars by far the lowest at-fault rate of any driver class on the road
Considering they choose where and when to drive, I should hope that they have a low fault rate. This only proves they chose safe places to drive that the car could handle. It is the human in the car keeping it safe. No where does it say that the car can drive on it's own for two million miles so the comment is not addressing autonomy at all.
I won't go into the NHSTA report, except to say that they didn't compare like for like. They should be comparing the safety of Teslas to the safety of other $80K+ luxury vehicles but they do not, they compare it to all vehicles. Many of the cars they used in the study to represent safety of Autopilot didn't even have Autopilot miles logged.
What part was made up? The fact that current automated cars have safety drivers? The fact that Waymo may be able to drive around 3500 miles without an interaction in limited circumstances, but humans drive around 37,000 miles without accidents in any environment? I'm really confused what part you think is made up. Maybe that's just how you make arguments.
Nonsense, there are safety measures in place for stupid people everywhere. Coffee heated only to a certain temperature, toasters that come with 'do not submerge' warnings. Not all stupid can be anticipated but Tesla could at least make an effort.
Part of the problem is that the owners may even be responsible enough to understand the limitations of Autopilot, but will they give a full training session when they hand the keys to their kid? Do they even know that they have Autopilot and need to explain it to their kid? If they are falling down drunk one night and someone else needs to drive them home, will the driver be fully familiar with the car?
Well, there are no self driving cars, they all have humans in them, so I'm sorry you wasted your time with those stats you think are on automated vehicles. There is an entire list of issues with the NHSTA study with regards to it's suitability to make any comment on the safety of Autopilot; it does not draw that conclusion because the sample wasn't right to draw that conclusion and it was likely a Tesla media spin. Even if they *are* actually safer in the environment they currently drive, that says nothing about how they will ever do in the truly dangerous environments where people die and insurance companies end up paying out, such as in extreme weather conditions.
The fact is, if a person is too blind to see a brightly colored concrete divider in the road you don't let them drive because you don't know what will happen. Autopilot is the same blind person yet we encourage it to drive. It just defies logic.
You keep trying to side track the conversation. Humans aren't legally allowed on the road unless they can see things like that. Why is Autopilot allowed to drive a human if it cannot. An 82-year old grandpa with cataracts cannot see well enough to drive, therefore they cannot legally touch the steering wheel of a moving vehicle, period. It doesn't matter if the person in the next seat has full driving controls with an instructors license and a race car certification. Why is a technology being allowed to drive if it cannot see what it is in front of it, like an 82-year old grandpa? What many other flaws are they hiding under the guise of 'intellectual property' and why does the public have a right to know? How long do they get away with "oops, I guess we'll fix it now" AFTER someone has died for their mistake? Human driving is very safe if you consider the 3.2 *trillion* miles driving in the US every year. Much safer than Autopilot would be if it were to drive everywhere and in all conditions like a human.
So you're saying the Tesla S can do a 10 second quarter mile with 4 people sitting in it? Otherwise who cares?