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

Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 181 posts

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#81

Post by [deleted] »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #57
menacingly wrote: post #13

There was a time when I thought of regulations as progress killers, but I find myself shifting on that and getting nervous every time I hear about self-driving tech. It's great stuff, but I really do not want my family to be the brave eggs we had to crack to get to the omelet of a driverless future. I now _like_ that someone somewhere has a book listing chemicals that aren't allowed to be shipped on an airplane, and…

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown…

[deleted]

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#82

Post by larkery »

lorenzhs wrote: post #39
TehCorwiz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving public transportation could provide the benefits of both.

Driverless trains have been here for a while. They're great. With platform-edge doors, nobody can fall or jump onto the track, not to mention that they increase brake cooling efficiency and decrease air resistance (less air to push). But of course you weren't talking about trains. I see this sentiment a lot on HN that self driving cars are going to fix everyone's transportation woes, but I'm not convinced that they w…

I agree with your scepticism about solving the commute traffic with a self-driving silver bullet. The research for traffic flow [1] says that, with human driven cars, a slice of a 4m wide lane will pass about 1000 people/hr in cars, about 7000 people on foot or bicycle, and about 10,000 people by bus.

That means that to get competitive flow with buses, self-driving cars need to deliver a tenfold improvement in flow. Since in traffic cars are quite tightly packed already, you probably can't get much from putting them closer together, so even if self-driving magic gives you two doublings of flow on its own you still need to more than double the speed limit to compete. I can imagine this working only on roads dedicated to self-driving vehicles, with no pedestrian crossings, so now self-driving cars benefits only materialise if they eat up a chunk of the public space.

You might get a bit of improvement from vehicle sharing as well, but it seems like a really complicated way to attack a problem that already has an OK low-tech answer, at least in high density areas.

Where I live the census says that about half the commute journeys in the area are less than a few miles, for which cars of any sort seem ridiculous to me, for the able bodied. For those who aren't able bodied or have a long journey all the able bodied car users on short trips are using up a scarce resource that they need!

Throw in the health benefits of active transport, and the health cost of particulate emissions (still a problem with electric cars, since a decent chunk comes off tyres and brakes) and it looks like a wash to me. Then again I am one of those awful bike people, so maybe I miss the point.

[1] Litman 2017, Brun & Vuchic 1995 etc.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#83

Post by xr4ti »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #57
menacingly wrote: post #13

There was a time when I thought of regulations as progress killers, but I find myself shifting on that and getting nervous every time I hear about self-driving tech. It's great stuff, but I really do not want my family to be the brave eggs we had to crack to get to the omelet of a driverless future. I now _like_ that someone somewhere has a book listing chemicals that aren't allowed to be shipped on an airplane, and…

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown…

A big difference is accountability. If you get into an accident and kill someone while playing a mobile game or taking a medication that says, "do not operate heavy machinery while taking this," it's clear who is at fault, and it is relatively easy for the state and injured parties seek sanction and redress through the justice system.

So what about an algorithm that has been given the regulatory green light and fails under some edge case or adversarial attack? How about something like the Tesla situation, where they advertise "self-driving" capabilities while tucking in some liability limiting fine print about how the driver should be alert and ready to take over control at all times?

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#84

Post by eru »

xr4ti wrote: post #83
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown…

A big difference is accountability. If you get into an accident and kill someone while playing a mobile game or taking a medication that says, "do not operate heavy machinery while taking this," it's clear who is at fault, and it is relatively easy for the state and injured parties seek sanction and redress through the justice system. So what about an algorithm that has been given the regulatory green light and fails…

Google says they want to be on the hook for their self-driving cars. (And they don't want humans to be able to take over in the first place.)

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#85

Post by xr4ti »

eru wrote: post #84
xr4ti wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big difference is accountability. If you get into an accident and kill someone while playing a mobile game or taking a medication that says, "do not operate heavy machinery while taking this," it's clear who is at fault, and it is relatively easy for the state and injured parties seek sanction and redress through the justice system. So what about an algorithm that has been given the regulatory green light and fails…

Google says they want to be on the hook for their self-driving cars. (And they don't want humans to be able to take over in the first place.)

Sure. That way they can partner with insurers to offer lower rates to people who buy their tech. Pretty sound business strategy.

I understand that this is a pretty cynical view, and to be fair all the Googlers I've spoken with are true believers in their tech (perhaps a little too much). But don't underestimate the power of ego and financial incentives to constrain ethical/moral calculus.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#86

Post by emptyfile »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #57
menacingly wrote: post #13

There was a time when I thought of regulations as progress killers, but I find myself shifting on that and getting nervous every time I hear about self-driving tech. It's great stuff, but I really do not want my family to be the brave eggs we had to crack to get to the omelet of a driverless future. I now _like_ that someone somewhere has a book listing chemicals that aren't allowed to be shipped on an airplane, and…

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown…

What's supposed to be the point of your post?

That police can't catch every criminal?

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#87

Post by greglindahl »

xr4ti wrote: post #83
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown…

A big difference is accountability. If you get into an accident and kill someone while playing a mobile game or taking a medication that says, "do not operate heavy machinery while taking this," it's clear who is at fault, and it is relatively easy for the state and injured parties seek sanction and redress through the justice system. So what about an algorithm that has been given the regulatory green light and fails…

This is an inaccurate description of the Tesla system. When you use it, the car repeatedly tells you that you have to stay alert, and it forces you to have your hands on the wheel most of the time.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#88

Post by smokeyj »

aesclepius wrote: post #77
smokeyj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why consumer/enterprise software is so lightly regulated is that very few people die when mistakes are made So few people die because computers are nearly unregulated and mass manufactured. Computers are cheap and safe because we allow the market to function.

Incorrect. Look at applied computing for medicine/healthcare, those things are strictly regulated and analyzed because of their potential to harm. A 0.001% overflow in your twitter app makes you restart your phone, a 0.001% overflow in your pacemaker means you die. Immediately.

I realize these regulations exist, my point is they come at a cost and that at some point the costs can become prohibitive. As I mentioned below the argument isn't just theoretical, it's why the term "medical tourism" exists.

I believe reasonable tradeoffs could be made in theory, but I also believe the appeal of regulatory capture is too alluring for wall street to pass up. And when the people who need these devices can't afford it - well, that's when operation Too Big To Fail goes into effect.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#89

Post by user5994461 »

sangnoir wrote: post #72
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown…

> I am still allowed to drive. Are you certain about that? Most jurisdictions I know have laws that make it illegal to drive in when your ability to drive is impaired - even if it's cough medicine that could make you drowsy - let alone blackout . edit: you are most likely breaking the law, that you haven't been caught yet isn't being "allowed to drive". Since we share the road with you, I'll repeat parent's appeal bu…

It's likely that a blackout drug would have a provision in the paper saying "you are not allowed to drive while under this medication". It's quite common.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#90

Post by vlunkr »

swinglock wrote: post #80
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown…

Get your act together, do you even realize that you’re a criminal?

Read it again, they aren't being serious. Just illustrating different ways humans are dangerous drivers.
Post reply on HN