Without incident? The car faffed up every 50 miles or so, this is well over one hundred times worse than waymo which requires intervention on average only after several thousand miles. I bet the waymo tech's weren't stupid enough to disable automatic breaking.
"Why do you assume that just because the car could notice something in the dark that human eyes could?"
Because I have a lot of experience of cheap cams recording road footage. Because I've seen other footage of the same area which shows the area is Very well lit with high visibilty for long distance, don't believe me? research it yourself.
The initial footage shown - the recording is from a cheap crappy crash cam which is either set up wrong or has some of the lowest range I've ever seen - the opposite of HDR. What is shown on that footage is nothing like what the driver would have seen.
So, it's not an assumption, it's based on better knowledge of the actual lighting conditions at the location.
Your assumption is that the footage you saw is what a human would have seen, THAT is the incorrect assumption here. We've all been over this on Slashdot on previous discussions, I guess you missed that.
Weâ(TM)re sorry. This site is temporarily unavailable.
We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time.
" It's understandable from a system perspective that they don't have two separate, independent, systems deciding when to apply the brakes operational at the same time."
You missed the bit where they disable their own system too, this is why the car didn't stop. Not 2 systems but zero braking systems. If they were going to disable their own system then they should of enabled the original Volvo system if possible.
Yeah right, so she should have noticed something with 6 seconds to do something about it. It doesn't look like she was either monitoring a good enough system and she didn't look up for nearly 6 seconds.
I feel sorry for the driver but she is likely at fault. Except if Uber didn't tell her what the situ was with the car not looking out for objects.
Problem with no'1: Which people is not defined. Level of Harm is not defined.
If no'1 was in effect the robot would have the impossible task of ensuring all humans do not come to any harm. It would be the ultimate nanny state because the robot would have to stop you for instance from eating foods with too much fat, salt, sugar because those can lead to physical harm. It would be the robot's duty to stop you from drinking alcohol. It would be the robots duty to make sure you don't drive if it can drive better. etc etc.
And because of rule 2, you wouldn't be able to tell it to bug off.
And if you tried to stop it then rule 3 might come in to effect and it would defend itself in order to be able to protect you!
As long as Tesla insist on calling their bad lane-assist technology 'auto-pilot' I will keep hammering on at what a stupid and inappropriate name it is, it's getting people killed. It doesn't matter exactly how 'auto-pilot' works in aero-planes, aero-planes fly above the earth and don't hit trailers, fire-trucks or dividing lanes.
People take 'auto-pilot' to mean self-driving, that is what matters and that is why the name is wrong.
You need to get your facts straight, she had already crossed several lanes and was almost across the road when she was struck. Both the car and the driver had the opportunity to slow and stop with ample time to spare.
No, it's not a plane, it can't fly so auto-pilot is not the right name for it and I also stated why it is such a bad name. Nothing pedant asshole about that.
It doesn't matter what auto-pilot means by some exact definition. What really matters is what people perceive it to mean and auto-pilot does not equal lane assist.
Auto to many people is short for automatic and when they hear 'auto-pilot' then think 'automatic driving'. It doesn't matter whether you're definition is the more correct one, what matters is that people think the car can drive itself when it clearly can't. Many people will assume that Tesla want them to be alert at all times just because they are covering their arses. Many people will assume after having used this automatic drive feature for 20k miles that it is safe and will drive the next 20k miles safely and this + the poorly chosen name gives them a false sense of security. It's not auto-anything, it's lane assist and it's not a very good one either.
2 people dead says they shouldn't be calling it auto-pilot.
'Batteries are poison' A bit over-simplistic, they are fine if not eaten. They should be recycled, the materials are rare enough that it makes financial sense to recycle them. In many cities space is at a premium and batteries will likely be the smallest option.
I'm not against flywheels, condensed gas storage etc but these technologies are still in their infancy and need investment. Batteries work now and the technology is improving rapidly
You think they have massive data centres the size of small towns just to collect meta-data that would fit in a home PC? Hint, they're collecting more, massively more.
Slashdot Mirror
Without incident? The car faffed up every 50 miles or so, this is well over one hundred times worse than waymo which requires intervention on average only after several thousand miles. I bet the waymo tech's weren't stupid enough to disable automatic breaking.
"Why do you assume that just because the car could notice something in the dark that human eyes could?"
Because I have a lot of experience of cheap cams recording road footage. Because I've seen other footage of the same area which shows the area is Very well lit with high visibilty for long distance, don't believe me? research it yourself.
The initial footage shown - the recording is from a cheap crappy crash cam which is either set up wrong or has some of the lowest range I've ever seen - the opposite of HDR. What is shown on that footage is nothing like what the driver would have seen.
So, it's not an assumption, it's based on better knowledge of the actual lighting conditions at the location.
Your assumption is that the footage you saw is what a human would have seen, THAT is the incorrect assumption here. We've all been over this on Slashdot on previous discussions, I guess you missed that.
"
Weâ(TM)re sorry. This site is temporarily unavailable.
We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time.
For any issues, contact us. gdpr@townnews.com
(403 error.)
"
" It's understandable from a system perspective that they don't have two separate, independent, systems deciding when to apply the brakes operational at the same time."
You missed the bit where they disable their own system too, this is why the car didn't stop. Not 2 systems but zero braking systems. If they were going to disable their own system then they should of enabled the original Volvo system if possible.
Yeah right, so she should have noticed something with 6 seconds to do something about it.
It doesn't look like she was either monitoring a good enough system and she didn't look up for nearly 6 seconds.
I feel sorry for the driver but she is likely at fault. Except if Uber didn't tell her what the situ was with the car not looking out for objects.
So, how would you know it's just one pixel and if it was just one pixel then how would they infer anything about it?
Problem with no'1:
Which people is not defined.
Level of Harm is not defined.
If no'1 was in effect the robot would have the impossible task of ensuring all humans do not come to any harm. It would be the ultimate nanny state because the robot would have to stop you for instance from eating foods with too much fat, salt, sugar because those can lead to physical harm. It would be the robot's duty to stop you from drinking alcohol. It would be the robots duty to make sure you don't drive if it can drive better. etc etc.
And because of rule 2, you wouldn't be able to tell it to bug off.
And if you tried to stop it then rule 3 might come in to effect and it would defend itself in order to be able to protect you!
Surely the square root of NOW is still NOW.
Human: Hey look we're travelling towards that stationary object at 60mph, I think we should slow or change course.
Auto-pilot: Hey look we're travelling towards that stationary object at 60mph. Lets just continue.
As long as Tesla insist on calling their bad lane-assist technology 'auto-pilot' I will keep hammering on at what a stupid and inappropriate name it is, it's getting people killed. It doesn't matter exactly how 'auto-pilot' works in aero-planes, aero-planes fly above the earth and don't hit trailers, fire-trucks or dividing lanes.
People take 'auto-pilot' to mean self-driving, that is what matters and that is why the name is wrong.
So, it's super massive and super bright and you can't post a fucking picture of it? FML.
Nothing wrong with the common cold, why muck about with dodgy ways to stop something that's harmless?
I look forwards to the UK gov't being switched off with trepidation.
2nd this, restaurants love to pump their products full of salt, I can't eat a dominos pizza for example, I'll feel very I'll the next day.
I really don't care, I fully explained why calling it autopilot is a bad idea, I haven't heard any argument debating the points I made.
True investor in a currency = oxymoron.
You need to get your facts straight, she had already crossed several lanes and was almost across the road when she was struck. Both the car and the driver had the opportunity to slow and stop with ample time to spare.
No, it's not a plane, it can't fly so auto-pilot is not the right name for it and I also stated why it is such a bad name. Nothing pedant asshole about that.
Can it fly?
It doesn't matter what auto-pilot means by some exact definition. What really matters is what people perceive it to mean and auto-pilot does not equal lane assist.
Auto to many people is short for automatic and when they hear 'auto-pilot' then think 'automatic driving'. It doesn't matter whether you're definition is the more correct one, what matters is that people think the car can drive itself when it clearly can't. Many people will assume that Tesla want them to be alert at all times just because they are covering their arses. Many people will assume after having used this automatic drive feature for 20k miles that it is safe and will drive the next 20k miles safely and this + the poorly chosen name gives them a false sense of security. It's not auto-anything, it's lane assist and it's not a very good one either.
2 people dead says they shouldn't be calling it auto-pilot.
Do Tesla's vehicles fly? No? Then it's misnamed.
'Batteries are poison'
A bit over-simplistic, they are fine if not eaten. They should be recycled, the materials are rare enough that it makes financial sense to recycle them. In many cities space is at a premium and batteries will likely be the smallest option.
I'm not against flywheels, condensed gas storage etc but these technologies are still in their infancy and need investment. Batteries work now and the technology is improving rapidly
NSA data centre brings 300 million daily security scares to its Utah home â The Register
How many Terabytes down $1.5 billion buy?
You think they have massive data centres the size of small towns just to collect meta-data that would fit in a home PC? Hint, they're collecting more, massively more.
Paint Shop Pro 5 FTW.