251–260 of 298 posts
Few things terrify me more than the thought of others' garage AI experiments bumping around on the roads my family walk along.
Open source is great, but I don't want this driving cars without oversight and certification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really have it both ways. I don't think they would have any legal problems due to this. They sell it but clearly label it as experimental, for research only, and urge buyers to comply with local regulation. And the law pretty much everywhere states that the driver is responsible for driving the car and for the outcomes of any modification brought to the car that wa…
> "Tesla is a real example that passed this test. Their marketing language brands AP as "fully self driving, some features unavailable due to local laws"." This isn't true, FSD has always been a 'coming soon' feature you can prepay for distinct from autopilot. Autopilot has always been advanced lane assist. "Autopilot" in planes just holds the same flight pattern and doesn't really do anything sophisticated, autopilo…
Regardless, Tesla was not found guilty for anything other than misleading advertisement, not for failing to build a car that drives itself. I don't see how comma.ai could be held to a higher standard.
> The court, in Munich, said: "By using the term 'autopilot' and other wording, the defendant suggests that their vehicles are technically able to drive completely autonomously." [0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s because the standard product doesn’t have autopilot, they sell a driver assistance tool. The tool they sell does not have autopilot. The device is open, and you can flash with their open source code from GitHub to give you hacky autopilot. This is how they get around the legal issue. It’s like a “we sell you a legal product. We advise you don’t flash this code on it which we are hosting on GitHub wink wink ”
Reminds me of university. "No officer, we weren't selling tickets to the keg, we'd need a license to sell booze. We're only selling cups for $5, the beer is free!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, their legal technique is a little more nuanced. They are selling a product which is a legal and legitimate driver assistance tool which does not have autopilot. You, as a user, can then modify the device by flashing unregulated code onto it to give it autopilot code, which is not advised by comma.ai *wink wink*
I expect this to end about as well as it did last time. 35 million miles is statistically meaningless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://comma.ai/faq Why even ask? Long trips means spending a lot of time boringly driving on the highway with clear weather. I do not care for help in the more difficult first 15 min or last 15 min. I care about having help during the many hours in between.
But if you still need to keep your attention on the road, what is the actual gain? What else can you be doing that gets past the distraction detection?
If self-driving companies really believed in their product, they would bundle car insurance that only works when self-driving is on with the product, and it would be cheaper than normal car insurance.
In fact we have the opposite, where MetroMile advertises lower premiums, while conveniently occupying your ODB2 port, without providing pass-through, preventing the use of Comma’s product (this honestly makes me consider switching from Geico to MetroMile, so I’m not subsidizing Comma customers, but there are other issues with MetroMile...).
As a motorcyclist, I figure I will eventually end up as a JIRA ticket in some "self-crashing car" system's backlog. But then again, that is the story of society - progress slowly built up over time on the pile of irradiated, mangled, dead and destroyed bodies over the course of millennia of lessons learned. Just hoping that they name the feature / patch after me.
I bought my car with the express intent of getting a compatible car for Comma. My comma absolutely increased the utility of my car to me. Been on 3 huge road trips that I wouldn’t have considered without the device. 12 hours on the road isn’t something I would do everyday, but absolutely bearable with a comma.
I'm still unclear as to the benefit given that you're required to attend to the road and it detects distracted people in the driver's seat?
So how much do these things actually cost? The title makes it seem like it's $999, one-time. But the website refers to $24/car/month. And there also appears to be a $200 harness fee at installation. Are there other fees? I might be interested in a system like this, but I would only use this infrequently. If it costs $1,200 + tax up-front and about $300/yr in perpetuity, that seems like much less of a good deal.
So, its $1200 without that stuff. George is strictly against SaaS revenue model, although for software that is continually improving, seems reasonable to me
ghost driving is planning to charge $99/month https://driveghost.com/sign-up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pseudo open-source (the ML model is still a closed black box). ? I am confused with this statement. Sure the ML model is a black box, but it's better than closed source completely with no model. It's more realistic to build the software yourself than training your own self driving ML system. I would still class this as still 'open source'.
The most fundamental part of the system, the one which makes driving decisions, is not open. I did not say anything about whether or not this was "better" than the product being fully closed source, only that it is not truly open, and I fully believe this. "Open source autopilot" implies to me that the autopilot is open - that an end-user can inspect, audit, and attempt to understand the decisions their vehicle is ma…
The end-user can inspect, audit and understand the decisions their vehicle is making. All you have to do is see how the neural network behaves for different inputs. That's the correct approach, whether you have access to the training code or not.