Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#231

Post by lisivka » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:27 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #162

jodrellblank wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're absolving the legally responsible human, so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving don't get to escape the blame if they crash because they couldn't respond quickly enough if the situation changes suddenly, regardless of 'tech failing'. If you have SatNav and it says 'drive down here' and you do, and it's a one-way street, you don…

> so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something, entreats you to confer upon it some degree of trust, then holds you responsible when it fails. Because lives can be lost as a result of such failures and the company's stance represents a cynical and cavalier regard for this fact. Because, they want t…

Car is not 100% safe even with human driver. If a tech makes less mistakes than a human, then the tech is better. It's your responsibility to chose what is better: you, the tech, or a taxi driver.

IMHO, every self-driving car must be equipped with a black-box to capture all information in case of an accident and special commission for investigation, to make rules to follow, so self-driven cars will be safer for others, and that is all. Self-driven system manufacturer can be punished only if these rules are not followed, by suspending a license to manufacture self-driving systems. Currently, we have almost no such rules at all.

IMHO, the first rule for self-driving cars, until they will be mature, must be better communication between computer and human: as driver, I want to see how computer sees road and obstacles, and planned actions, and other variants of these actions to pickup. I want computer to project computer map to wind-shield and be presented with tree buttons: big red «stop» button, left button, and right button, so I will be able to see road situation, computer understanding of that situation, and will be able to correct computer or make a full stop.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#232

Post by unclebucknasty » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:15 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #193

unclebucknasty wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a Tesla PR play: call it Autopilot, except when the context is liability.

The airplane technology that Tesla's Autopilot is named after is also an assistive technology, not a replacement for pilots. The complaint people have around the name is that people don't understand what autopilot is, not that Tesla are equivocating.

>people don't understand what autopilot is

Much effort is expended on branding and naming. This would, at a bare minimim, include a basic consideration of how a word is commonly perceived, irrespective of whether the common perception is accurate.

Tesla is fully aware of the cachet that the name confers upon the brand, while displaying it prominently and relegating the absolution and disclaimers to the finer print. I like Tesla. I admire Musk's acumen and vision. But, here, they are certainly equivocating and it's irresponsible.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#233

Post by asendra » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #193

unclebucknasty wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a Tesla PR play: call it Autopilot, except when the context is liability.

The airplane technology that Tesla's Autopilot is named after is also an assistive technology, not a replacement for pilots. The complaint people have around the name is that people don't understand what autopilot is, not that Tesla are equivocating.

Language evolves. If the vast majority of people understand by Autopilot the capability of driving alone without assistance, and you know it, I don't care that the proper textbook definition of that technology refers to assisted driving.

You are being disingenuous at best.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#234

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

nixy wrote: post #210

Shank wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a new driver, I would much, much rather play it safe if I'm unfamiliar with the intersection & traffic flow than pull out. Does it seem silly to you? Probably. To me? No. I don't want to be caught in an intersection that I'm not supposed to be in when the light turns red.

But a green light allows you, even as you're turning left, to enter the intersection. The light lets you in to the intersection so that you can leave it when conditions are favorable to do so.

Assuming there is space for you in your destination lane.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#235

Post by eeZah7Ux » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

goalieca wrote: post #30

dsl wrote: post #8

Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption. (Regardless of what you think of the laws in question, they were still being broken in the eyes of most regulators) I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can a…

Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far. Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.

> Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech.

You are misusing those terms, as belovedeagle pointed out.

> ... will never be regarded as an engineering profession > It's like we rebelled against adulthood

Who is "us"? Many, if not most, software engineers would welcome being able to refuse doing anything morally questionable. Many are unhappy about companies disregard for safety, security, privacy, respect for users.

Yet, most are powerless in a world of at-will employment, H1B shackles, NDAs, and lack of professional organizations to protect those who disagree with their employer on ethical grounds.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#236

Post by chc » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

asendra wrote: post #233

chc wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The airplane technology that Tesla's Autopilot is named after is also an assistive technology, not a replacement for pilots. The complaint people have around the name is that people don't understand what autopilot is, not that Tesla are equivocating.

Language evolves. If the vast majority of people understand by Autopilot the capability of driving alone without assistance, and you know it, I don't care that the proper textbook definition of that technology refers to assisted driving. You are being disingenuous at best.

I agree that relying on archaic definitions would be sneaky, but I'm not talking about "the proper textbook definition," I'm talking about how it's used in the real world by people who actually create and use autopilot systems in airplanes. Just because some people use "quantum" to mean "huge" (e.g. "It's a quantum leap forward") doesn't mean somebody is being disingenuous to use it in the sense of "a minimal amount."

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#237

Post by surfmike » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #181

harlanlewis wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that ratings should mean something. However, Uber requires an absolute minimum score of 3.8 for drivers to stay on the platform, and a 4.6 minimum for any area that has reasonable driver supply (eg: everywhere). This means every time you rate a driver a 4 it's effectively a statement that they should be fired.

We've traded one set of problems (with taxis) with another set of problems.

problems before: dirty taxis, disrespectful drivers, limited availability in some neighborhoods, often opaque and expensive pricing

problems now: we don't have enough flexibility to give 4 stars for a good but not perfect ride

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#238

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #181

harlanlewis wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that ratings should mean something. However, Uber requires an absolute minimum score of 3.8 for drivers to stay on the platform, and a 4.6 minimum for any area that has reasonable driver supply (eg: everywhere). This means every time you rate a driver a 4 it's effectively a statement that they should be fired.

We've traded one set of problems (with taxis) with another set of problems.

[deleted]

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#239

Post by DoodleBuggy » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #59

DoodleBuggy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation. Obviously California does a good job at this. The innovative machine that is Silicon Valley has been impossible to replicate anywhere else on Earth, nothing else even comes close.

That happens despite California, not because of California.

Right, that's why there's a Silicon Valley in every state and in every nation. Obviously.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#240

Post by djrogers » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #192

djrogers wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Voluntary fire brigades. It's entirely rational to join a VFD out of self interest.

And yet what you do in VFD is very often against your own self interest - you sacrifice a lot of time, and sometimes risk your health and life, and all you get for yourself is bragging rights.

> all you get for yourself is bragging rights.

Not at all! You get the knowledge that the men and women standing beside you at an emergency will be there when it's your house/barn/grain silo that goes up.