71–80 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not crash?
It was in manual mode. Should it forcibly take away control from the user that gave it a direct command, because it "thinks" they're not paying attention?
If you add safety measures to manual (possible outcome of GP’s comment) then you’re back at not having a manual safety override.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was in manual mode. Should it forcibly take away control from the user that gave it a direct command, because it "thinks" they're not paying attention?
The whole POINT of manual mode is (quite possibly) the car’s interpretation of the situation is wrong and CAN’T be safely followed. If you add safety measures to manual (possible outcome of GP’s comment) then you’re back at not having a manual safety override.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not crash?
It was in manual mode. Should it forcibly take away control from the user that gave it a direct command, because it "thinks" they're not paying attention?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was in manual mode. Should it forcibly take away control from the user that gave it a direct command, because it "thinks" they're not paying attention?
The whole POINT of manual mode is (quite possibly) the car’s interpretation of the situation is wrong and CAN’T be safely followed. If you add safety measures to manual (possible outcome of GP’s comment) then you’re back at not having a manual safety override.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber’s fatal crash was caused by a crazy, suicidal person who literally stepped in front of the car. A human driver couldn’t have avoided her.
That is completely false. Any decent camera or eyesight from the car's point of view would have seen the pedestrian well in advance enough to avoid that crash. Uber's fatal crash was caused by the car being programmed to ignore stationary/slow moving objects in the way.
Unfortunately the lidar did not have control of the system, did not have override capability, and could not notify the driver in an emergency in any way. It was effectively disabled from the perspective of vehicle control and safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole POINT of manual mode is (quite possibly) the car’s interpretation of the situation is wrong and CAN’T be safely followed. If you add safety measures to manual (possible outcome of GP’s comment) then you’re back at not having a manual safety override.
Self driving cars are supposedly utilizing AI. If the AI is this fragile, then it is no where near being ready for public consumption.
That tester detected a serious bug in the whole concept, inadvertently risking his life during testing. He should've been promoted.
This is definitely the correct response - what is the role of testing if not to uncover flaws in both design and implementation?
Their job is not to flake on duty and then, by pure accident, reveal the system's inability to recover from a failure more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self driving cars are supposedly utilizing AI. If the AI is this fragile, then it is no where near being ready for public consumption.
Which is why they’re not selling it to the public yet. They’re testing. And they NEED a working manual mode for that.