Also there is no data about how people are using Autopilot. Maybe autopilot isn't saving them from accidents at all and they just take control at the sign of anything, which would mean it is totally useless at saving lives.
Comparing to human safety is bullshit. We're talking about a person who died because he trusted autopilot, and it should have had the capability to save him. That's all that matters.
Learning is only a life long activity if you are in an industry that absolutely refuses to spend time training people. My dad used to work a lot with electronic controllers and they would get a whole course every time a new one came in. These days it seems when a new piece of technology comes in it's up to you do do it on your time.
Except there is much less happening in the sky so it makes more sense on planes. In fact it probably works the other way in planes.. Unless you're in a busy controlled air space with lots going on the pilot would lose attentiveness at the yoke. When you're driving there is always enough going on to keep attentive about, even on the highway. It's just that us humans are so good at monitoring for hazards we take for granted how much actually happens on the highway versus in the sky.
It's because the autopilot as implemented in a Tesla car just doesn't make sense. It's bizarre to have a system that purports to allow you to not pay attention to driving, yet still have you have to pay attention to driving. Things that don't make sense tend to not have a place in the way people understand and use things. It isn't ready, it doesn't work with human psychology, and it should have never been put on the market in its current state.
What's the point of having Autopilot if you have to stay fully involved? Might as well drive then and avoid the autopilot disengaging at some unfortunate moment.
Well, that would definitely be the case because the AI will hand the controls over once a scenario is already in progress. You're going to be headed at 60MPH towards a wall and the car is going to say HERE YOU DRIVE.
What is the point of having a car with a self driving feature if you have to pay attention? Either the car drives for you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the only way to ensure your fully involved in the drive is to drive.
Really? Someone is going to make a 'this product may drive through the side of a house if a cat runs in front of it' clause? The onus is on industry to make their products realistically safe. The owner is only liable in the case of misuse. Other than not maintaining it properly, there is no way to misuse a car you literally sit in and point to a direction. There may not even be anyone in the car. If the industry doesn't make these safe enough then insurance will be prohibitively expensive anyway.
So these are different engineers than the ones that designed for Tesla? https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
Or does Google have smarter engineers. Seems to me Google couldn't get around a sand bag without running into a bus just a few months ago. Were they able to enter all the perceived obstacles that they thought of since then? Because surely if they had thought of everything they would have thought of a sandbag. Are they could to skip testing on ice altogether? If it can make it down a sunny California road, it can make it through six inches of blowing snow with three inches of rutted ice underneath?
The new way of doing business... screw people over and hide behind the promise of technological innovation. Are we that desperate for new technology that we are willing to allow companies to break long held assumptions about not taking a customer's money if they are not satisfied?
Ah ok I get what he did. The difference is I type the words and it is understood that a spell checker just augments the things I type. In the car sense, we have this now.. A person drives and the car helps them in any way they can by having proximity sensors etc. There is no claim that it is self driving, just as a spell checker will not write the comment for me. Google is releasing cars as 'self driving'. I take this to mean that I might not even be in the car. Either they have to take responsibility for it, or they should be calling it 'augmented driving' which is what it really is then. If they are releasing 'augmented driving' then I'm not really sure of the point of having it, since I have to be in the car and I have to be attentive anyway I might as well drive.
Did you not understand the sentence? Perhaps you should find something important to post about rather than pointing out every error people make before they've had their coffee for the morning.
Google is able to talk the talk, but until they release these cars for use by the general public in all climates we don't really know whether they are safe or not. Many auto manufactures test their vehicles in the arctic to determine their winter worthiness; how much ice and snow driving has Google done? These things will need to be flawless unless Google wants all kinds of lawsuits coming at them. They are essentially sticking their neck out and telling us that they will be the driver, therefore they need to take full responsibility for any accidents that happen with AI.
Does anyone remember this site? They were shut down because allowing searches on lyrics and providing lyrics were deemed to be a copyright violation. People argued that getting the lyrics in the cd jacket was part of the allure of buying the product.
Some pirate somewhere is salivating at the thought of unmanned ships. I wonder if they are giving any thought to fending off pirates with an autonomous ship.
Well whether travel for the disabled should be paid for by the government or not is a debatable case. The point remains, making such a change should be done through government and not by starting a rogue company that ignores laws. The thing is, you say the taxi industry is a bunch of collusion, yet you are ushing in an industry where there may only be two major players. We'll see how open Uber and Lyft are to newcomers. And these companies aren't even employing anyone.
What do you do for a job that you ride around all day? Most people have desk jobs; drive to work, drive back. More cars on the road 24/7 means more cars on the road overall.
A taxi license is transferable for money. It's not some hot potato that some person should get stuck with and fuck him. It is a game chip in the market and has a value.
Furthermore, nothing is stopping any taxi driver from switching over to providing ride sharing services, so it's not like they are out of business.
Hey, amen to that. But he'll be going from bring able to support a family to working for practically minimum wage. But hey, as long as you got cheap rides right? Hail Uber.
Please explain why the taxi regulations make less sense today. A city still needs taxis to be a certain way to fulfill their needs. People in less profitable areas still need service, physically disabled people still need access, there are still financially devastating car accidents, and there are ever more cars on the road today making it even more important that the number of taxi's be regulated. Furthermore, regulations are not blocking any company from hailing via phone, all they do is ensure the company meet certain obligations that contribute to the betterment of the city overall.
Furthermore, the taxi industry is miffed because the government set up a standard set of rules for everyone. If I buy a house in an area that is completely zoned residential and then it becomes worthless because a company decides to tear fifty houses down and build a big factory behind it and the government allows them to, damn rights I would be upset. How can people run a business if the market they have been guaranteed in law suddenly gets eroded because the government decides not to care about upholding the laws that they were holding everyone to in the first place. Back to the house example, if such a scenario were to happen the government would need to compensate me for changing a zoning from residential to commercial and the taxi industry should be compensated as well. Their only fault really is in trusting the government to do what they said they would do. You can't play a game without everyone knowing and following the rules. The taxi industry is a game that was set up a long time ago and if someone comes to the board and plays by a different set of rules then the original game no longer exists. Either everyone playing by the original set of rules gets level set to the new rules so they can go back to a fair playing field or the new player has to adopt to the old rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Also there is no data about how people are using Autopilot. Maybe autopilot isn't saving them from accidents at all and they just take control at the sign of anything, which would mean it is totally useless at saving lives.
Comparing to human safety is bullshit. We're talking about a person who died because he trusted autopilot, and it should have had the capability to save him. That's all that matters.
Learning is only a life long activity if you are in an industry that absolutely refuses to spend time training people. My dad used to work a lot with electronic controllers and they would get a whole course every time a new one came in. These days it seems when a new piece of technology comes in it's up to you do do it on your time.
It still has to work with human psychology.
Except there is much less happening in the sky so it makes more sense on planes. In fact it probably works the other way in planes.. Unless you're in a busy controlled air space with lots going on the pilot would lose attentiveness at the yoke. When you're driving there is always enough going on to keep attentive about, even on the highway. It's just that us humans are so good at monitoring for hazards we take for granted how much actually happens on the highway versus in the sky.
It's because the autopilot as implemented in a Tesla car just doesn't make sense. It's bizarre to have a system that purports to allow you to not pay attention to driving, yet still have you have to pay attention to driving. Things that don't make sense tend to not have a place in the way people understand and use things. It isn't ready, it doesn't work with human psychology, and it should have never been put on the market in its current state.
What's the point of having Autopilot if you have to stay fully involved? Might as well drive then and avoid the autopilot disengaging at some unfortunate moment.
Well, that would definitely be the case because the AI will hand the controls over once a scenario is already in progress. You're going to be headed at 60MPH towards a wall and the car is going to say HERE YOU DRIVE.
What is the point of having a car with a self driving feature if you have to pay attention? Either the car drives for you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the only way to ensure your fully involved in the drive is to drive.
Really? Someone is going to make a 'this product may drive through the side of a house if a cat runs in front of it' clause? The onus is on industry to make their products realistically safe. The owner is only liable in the case of misuse. Other than not maintaining it properly, there is no way to misuse a car you literally sit in and point to a direction. There may not even be anyone in the car. If the industry doesn't make these safe enough then insurance will be prohibitively expensive anyway.
Then I really don't see them catching on in the market place.
Legal liability is more of a motivator than safety. If Google doesn't want to get sued for a faulty product, they had better be almost perfect.
So these are different engineers than the ones that designed for Tesla? https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
Or does Google have smarter engineers. Seems to me Google couldn't get around a sand bag without running into a bus just a few months ago. Were they able to enter all the perceived obstacles that they thought of since then? Because surely if they had thought of everything they would have thought of a sandbag. Are they could to skip testing on ice altogether? If it can make it down a sunny California road, it can make it through six inches of blowing snow with three inches of rutted ice underneath?
Honest companies don't let products this bad get to market.
The new way of doing business... screw people over and hide behind the promise of technological innovation. Are we that desperate for new technology that we are willing to allow companies to break long held assumptions about not taking a customer's money if they are not satisfied?
Ah ok I get what he did. The difference is I type the words and it is understood that a spell checker just augments the things I type. In the car sense, we have this now.. A person drives and the car helps them in any way they can by having proximity sensors etc. There is no claim that it is self driving, just as a spell checker will not write the comment for me. Google is releasing cars as 'self driving'. I take this to mean that I might not even be in the car. Either they have to take responsibility for it, or they should be calling it 'augmented driving' which is what it really is then. If they are releasing 'augmented driving' then I'm not really sure of the point of having it, since I have to be in the car and I have to be attentive anyway I might as well drive.
Did you not understand the sentence? Perhaps you should find something important to post about rather than pointing out every error people make before they've had their coffee for the morning.
Excuse me? If I'm in a self driving car I'm not being held responsible for decisions the car makes on it's own.
Google is able to talk the talk, but until they release these cars for use by the general public in all climates we don't really know whether they are safe or not. Many auto manufactures test their vehicles in the arctic to determine their winter worthiness; how much ice and snow driving has Google done? These things will need to be flawless unless Google wants all kinds of lawsuits coming at them. They are essentially sticking their neck out and telling us that they will be the driver, therefore they need to take full responsibility for any accidents that happen with AI.
Yes, if it has more words to read than a video it is considered long these days.
Does anyone remember this site? They were shut down because allowing searches on lyrics and providing lyrics were deemed to be a copyright violation. People argued that getting the lyrics in the cd jacket was part of the allure of buying the product.
Some pirate somewhere is salivating at the thought of unmanned ships. I wonder if they are giving any thought to fending off pirates with an autonomous ship.
What do you do for a job that you ride around all day? Most people have desk jobs; drive to work, drive back. More cars on the road 24/7 means more cars on the road overall.
A taxi license is transferable for money. It's not some hot potato that some person should get stuck with and fuck him. It is a game chip in the market and has a value.
Furthermore, nothing is stopping any taxi driver from switching over to providing ride sharing services, so it's not like they are out of business.
Hey, amen to that. But he'll be going from bring able to support a family to working for practically minimum wage. But hey, as long as you got cheap rides right? Hail Uber.
So how do you limit the number of cars on the road in your system?
Please explain why the taxi regulations make less sense today. A city still needs taxis to be a certain way to fulfill their needs. People in less profitable areas still need service, physically disabled people still need access, there are still financially devastating car accidents, and there are ever more cars on the road today making it even more important that the number of taxi's be regulated. Furthermore, regulations are not blocking any company from hailing via phone, all they do is ensure the company meet certain obligations that contribute to the betterment of the city overall.
Furthermore, the taxi industry is miffed because the government set up a standard set of rules for everyone. If I buy a house in an area that is completely zoned residential and then it becomes worthless because a company decides to tear fifty houses down and build a big factory behind it and the government allows them to, damn rights I would be upset. How can people run a business if the market they have been guaranteed in law suddenly gets eroded because the government decides not to care about upholding the laws that they were holding everyone to in the first place. Back to the house example, if such a scenario were to happen the government would need to compensate me for changing a zoning from residential to commercial and the taxi industry should be compensated as well. Their only fault really is in trusting the government to do what they said they would do. You can't play a game without everyone knowing and following the rules. The taxi industry is a game that was set up a long time ago and if someone comes to the board and plays by a different set of rules then the original game no longer exists. Either everyone playing by the original set of rules gets level set to the new rules so they can go back to a fair playing field or the new player has to adopt to the old rules.