Well they haven't made it work yet with "a bit of lidar", so there is no proof of concept for that. They can't even figure out whether to place a lidar sensor on the vehicle so that it sees everything from a low hanging bridge to a ground squirrel. On the contrary, they had a working prototype of both a seatbelt and the 'super complicated' air bag device before putting them into consumer vehicles.
Seat belts and airbags are not an apt comparison because they were always intended to be a cheap and basic solution. Autonomy is the exact opposite of that. It is hard to see if it can ever be adopted to the extent that will save a significant amount of lives. Therefore it shouldn't even enter into consideration at this point.
As long as Uber is putting these cars on the road intending for them to one day be autonomous and in the name of training them to be autonomous, then they should be technically ready to be autonomous. If they are not technically ready to be autonomous then they need to go back to the drawing board and get better hardware.
If the Uber cars are really capable of avoiding cyclists, why does Uber not just say so? Also if their cars are so teachable why don't they just go through a couple proper turns with a pilot and resolve that issue forever more? If anything, regulation is highlighting some real glaring gaps in their implementation here and that's a good thing.
The elephant in the room here is that any self driving car should be able to avoid a cyclist no matter where they are. Why doesn't Uber simply put minds to rest and say, "we have confidence we will avoid a cyclist 100% of the time if they are on the road". Unless they can't, which is the really concerning part.
Well yeah you have no argument from me that there should have been some sort of town set up with simulations to run so they can test this stuff. But apparently the concerned public doesn't get a say any more.
It comes down to how injured the pedestrian would be. A pedestrian with a scratch and an alive dog would be better than an untouched pedestrian and a dead dog. People tell me that AI is ready to be on the roads and already safer than a human so this must all be worked out.
If the car would automatically do collision avoidance with a cyclist, why is it concerning that it drives in bicycle lanes? In the city I live in, the bicycle lanes are a suggestion basically to remind the driver to be extra careful for cyclists in that place and it works fine. All the driver has to do is watch for them. For an autonomous car to be successful it will need to watch for small children standing in the road not just cyclists. So again, I don't see the problem unless it can't see cyclists. If this is the case, it really worries me what else they aren't seeing right now.
I would say damages would be covered by their vehicle insurance. If the insurance company they are with had been too stupid to realize what they were insuring, then the insurance company would sue Uber.
I had thought that an autonomous car would sense any and all objects in the road, sense their movement, and not impede on their movement. Therefore I don't see why it would have to understand bike lanes at all, just know that there is a bicyclist there and don't drive into them. It kind of worries me about the state of AI if it doesn't operate with that simple rule.
But the vehicle should have to have the capability to sense small animals to move forward. Otherwise it is glaringly lacking in a capacity that humans are not.
Regular drivers notice and avoid small animals. Therefore, self driving cars should be *better* at noticing and avoiding small animals, because people say they are better than human drivers.
I thought these sensors were all-seeing all-knowing? Why can't they simply detect a cyclist and avoid it as they would avoid a car? How long before these run over someone's pet?
I saw people more afraid that they would be put out half-baked, either driving too slowly for prevailing traffic or killing people and/or animals. Until we see how this works, it looks to me like that is coming true.
I can't say what would convince me because I know know where the alleged hack was. If it was incorrect voting machines, then I would expect a demonstration that the numbers are off somehow or a person with a recent large deposit in his account who came into contact with the machines.
If you ask for more money, in their mind that just validates a more open H1-B. It solves nothing. Without a government willing to prosecute abuse of H1B they will find a method to obtain workers who will work for the salary they want rather than accepting lcoal market forces. All that +1M openings represents is an industry unwilling to establish a fair and profitable working environment and so no one wants to take the time to learn the skills because why go into it if you'll be treated like a slave or have your job go overseas anyway as soon as you want a raise for being a good and loyal worker.
Slashdot Mirror
Well they haven't made it work yet with "a bit of lidar", so there is no proof of concept for that. They can't even figure out whether to place a lidar sensor on the vehicle so that it sees everything from a low hanging bridge to a ground squirrel. On the contrary, they had a working prototype of both a seatbelt and the 'super complicated' air bag device before putting them into consumer vehicles.
Seat belts and airbags are not an apt comparison because they were always intended to be a cheap and basic solution. Autonomy is the exact opposite of that. It is hard to see if it can ever be adopted to the extent that will save a significant amount of lives. Therefore it shouldn't even enter into consideration at this point.
As long as Uber is putting these cars on the road intending for them to one day be autonomous and in the name of training them to be autonomous, then they should be technically ready to be autonomous. If they are not technically ready to be autonomous then they need to go back to the drawing board and get better hardware.
If the Uber cars are really capable of avoiding cyclists, why does Uber not just say so? Also if their cars are so teachable why don't they just go through a couple proper turns with a pilot and resolve that issue forever more? If anything, regulation is highlighting some real glaring gaps in their implementation here and that's a good thing.
The elephant in the room here is that any self driving car should be able to avoid a cyclist no matter where they are. Why doesn't Uber simply put minds to rest and say, "we have confidence we will avoid a cyclist 100% of the time if they are on the road". Unless they can't, which is the really concerning part.
I hope we don't allow laws to override all human morality towards life.
Well yeah you have no argument from me that there should have been some sort of town set up with simulations to run so they can test this stuff. But apparently the concerned public doesn't get a say any more.
It's pretty hard to claim you didn't know when you're the one developing it and you didn't test a particular scenario that results in an accident.
So? These drivers are supposed to be training the car to drive properly. Very hard to do that if you don't drive properly yourself.
It comes down to how injured the pedestrian would be. A pedestrian with a scratch and an alive dog would be better than an untouched pedestrian and a dead dog. People tell me that AI is ready to be on the roads and already safer than a human so this must all be worked out.
If the car would automatically do collision avoidance with a cyclist, why is it concerning that it drives in bicycle lanes? In the city I live in, the bicycle lanes are a suggestion basically to remind the driver to be extra careful for cyclists in that place and it works fine. All the driver has to do is watch for them. For an autonomous car to be successful it will need to watch for small children standing in the road not just cyclists. So again, I don't see the problem unless it can't see cyclists. If this is the case, it really worries me what else they aren't seeing right now.
Wow I'm surprised the human augment driver would even let the car DO all that without intervening.
I would say damages would be covered by their vehicle insurance. If the insurance company they are with had been too stupid to realize what they were insuring, then the insurance company would sue Uber.
I had thought that an autonomous car would sense any and all objects in the road, sense their movement, and not impede on their movement. Therefore I don't see why it would have to understand bike lanes at all, just know that there is a bicyclist there and don't drive into them. It kind of worries me about the state of AI if it doesn't operate with that simple rule.
They can't sense cyclists, so I assume so.
But the vehicle should have to have the capability to sense small animals to move forward. Otherwise it is glaringly lacking in a capacity that humans are not.
I didn't say 0 accidents. I said 'better', meaning less accidents.
Regular drivers notice and avoid small animals. Therefore, self driving cars should be *better* at noticing and avoiding small animals, because people say they are better than human drivers.
I thought these sensors were all-seeing all-knowing? Why can't they simply detect a cyclist and avoid it as they would avoid a car? How long before these run over someone's pet?
I saw people more afraid that they would be put out half-baked, either driving too slowly for prevailing traffic or killing people and/or animals. Until we see how this works, it looks to me like that is coming true.
Proper managers can manage this. It makes sense, it's about time.
We need honest corporations.
I can't say what would convince me because I know know where the alleged hack was. If it was incorrect voting machines, then I would expect a demonstration that the numbers are off somehow or a person with a recent large deposit in his account who came into contact with the machines.
I'll be retired in 2030 (I hope).
If you ask for more money, in their mind that just validates a more open H1-B. It solves nothing. Without a government willing to prosecute abuse of H1B they will find a method to obtain workers who will work for the salary they want rather than accepting lcoal market forces. All that +1M openings represents is an industry unwilling to establish a fair and profitable working environment and so no one wants to take the time to learn the skills because why go into it if you'll be treated like a slave or have your job go overseas anyway as soon as you want a raise for being a good and loyal worker.