Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#51

Post by boomboomsubban »

stupidcar wrote: post #28
rwmj wrote: post #4

These open source driving platforms are an interesting way to test out the limits of liability disclaimers on software. This license has: 8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for d…

I notice the website contains a separate disclaimer that begins: "The Apollo Open Platform (“Platform”) data, software and code provided or developed on the Platform (collectively, “Platform Code”), may be licensed to you strictly for testing purposes." http://apollo.auto/docs/disclaimer.html IANAL, but is it permissible to say that Apache licensed code is only licensed for the purposes of "testing"? Wouldn't that co…

The Apollo Open Platform seems to be something separate not licensed under the Apache License. It appears to be the actual data used to design a robot, and the Apollo software is just the UI.

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#52

Post by inertial »

pd0wm wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #5

Autonomous driving based purely on machine learning from vision is scary. Machine learning is, after all, a statistical method. It's going to do really great most of the time, and really badly once in a while.

The exact same can be said about human drivers. Why do we demand that autonomous driving is 100% safe? I would be completely fine with autonomous cars that sometimes crash, but are still less likely to do so than with human drivers.

> The exact same can be said about human drivers

Maybe not. There are cautious drivers and there are rash drivers. The probability of accident is wildly different for both of them. However the probability of an accident due to a a bug/miscalculation in autonomous driving is same for everyone.

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#53

Post by jhall1468 »

weberc2 wrote: post #31
yzmtf2008 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most open source projects have a disclaimer like this. You don't want to be responsible for the usage of whichever random programmer either.

I hope there is a difference in liability between a self-driving car library and it's left-pad dependency.

There isn't when your the one using the software on your hardware.

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#54

Post by jhall1468 »

inertial wrote: post #52
pd0wm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact same can be said about human drivers. Why do we demand that autonomous driving is 100% safe? I would be completely fine with autonomous cars that sometimes crash, but are still less likely to do so than with human drivers.

> The exact same can be said about human drivers Maybe not. There are cautious drivers and there are rash drivers. The probability of accident is wildly different for both of them. However the probability of an accident due to a a bug/miscalculation in autonomous driving is same for everyone.

They shouldn't be because even as a cautious driver you are subjected to noncautious drivers and, more importantly, no matter how cautious you are a well designed AI is almost certainly better.

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#55

Post by inertial »

jhall1468 wrote: post #54
inertial wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The exact same can be said about human drivers Maybe not. There are cautious drivers and there are rash drivers. The probability of accident is wildly different for both of them. However the probability of an accident due to a a bug/miscalculation in autonomous driving is same for everyone.

They shouldn't be because even as a cautious driver you are subjected to noncautious drivers and, more importantly, no matter how cautious you are a well designed AI is almost certainly better.

Both cautious & rash drivers face the same external factors, but latter are more likely to wreck themselves, sometimes without involving others. So probability of an accident for latter are higher.

AI may be good at reducing the average number of accidents, but when a tricky situation occurs, the probability of accident could be in this order "rash > AI > cautious".

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#56

Post by mwfunk »

nsxwolf wrote: post #18
rwmj wrote: post #4

These open source driving platforms are an interesting way to test out the limits of liability disclaimers on software. This license has: 8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for d…

Count me out on ever contributing to a project like this. I really don't want to be a test case.

This isn't because it's unreliable or because you (the developer) would be a test case. I mean, I don't know anything about this project so I can't vouch for it, but pretty much every open source project in this area is obligated to have this kind of verbiage and it has nothing to do with the quality of the project.

This is so you can contribute to an open source project without worrying about some random person suing you. This is to protect the contributors, which includes anyone who submits changes, which would include you. If you see an autonomous driving project that doesn't have language like this, that's the project you want to stay away from, not this one.

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#57

Post by thallukrish »

pd0wm wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #5

Autonomous driving based purely on machine learning from vision is scary. Machine learning is, after all, a statistical method. It's going to do really great most of the time, and really badly once in a while.

The exact same can be said about human drivers. Why do we demand that autonomous driving is 100% safe? I would be completely fine with autonomous cars that sometimes crash, but are still less likely to do so than with human drivers.

To err is human. We can punish erring drivers by law. But we cannot punish a robot. Unless there is law that applies to the owner of the autonomous vehicle companies on erring automatons unleashed by them :-) and they are implementable.

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#58

Post by foxylad »

inertial wrote: post #52
pd0wm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact same can be said about human drivers. Why do we demand that autonomous driving is 100% safe? I would be completely fine with autonomous cars that sometimes crash, but are still less likely to do so than with human drivers.

> The exact same can be said about human drivers Maybe not. There are cautious drivers and there are rash drivers. The probability of accident is wildly different for both of them. However the probability of an accident due to a a bug/miscalculation in autonomous driving is same for everyone.

And when that bug is fixed, assuming modern update practices, it is fixed for everyone. In effect, human drivers can only learn from their own mistakes whereas autonomous systems learn from every mistake made by their system's drivers.

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#59

Post by aussieguy123 »

lwansbrough wrote: post #47
bradhe wrote: post #3

How many more projects are going to get launched with the name "apollo"?

Hey guys, we need a new name. Start calling out names from mythology and we'll pick the coolest sounding/most applicable one! So creative!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures_(A...

Re: Apollo – An open autonomous driving platform

#60

Post by F_r_k »

thallukrish wrote: post #57
pd0wm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact same can be said about human drivers. Why do we demand that autonomous driving is 100% safe? I would be completely fine with autonomous cars that sometimes crash, but are still less likely to do so than with human drivers.

To err is human. We can punish erring drivers by law. But we cannot punish a robot. Unless there is law that applies to the owner of the autonomous vehicle companies on erring automatons unleashed by them :-) and they are implementable.

Do you punish a human because of payback or so that it doesn't commit again the same error ?
Post reply on HN