31–40 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others, so I naturally believe others more.
Tesla doesn't advertise. Tesla doesn't even have a PR department… they closed it. >Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others link? waiting…
With unbreakable windows (forbidden for safety, otherwise there would not be carjackings anymore).
> A hit-and-run incident in Melbourne yesterday could set a legal precedent for the use of autonomous driving technologies in Australia. There is no precedent to be set. If you are behind the wheel of a car you are responsible for it's operation. 'Autopilot' or not. And hard to say it was the autopilot's fault for driving off and returning to the police station two hours later.
Quoting the article:
"David McCarthy – a former journalist and current consultant for automotive manufacturers – told Drive the incident and upcoming court case will be significant for two reasons: It will set a precedent for driver culpability in the eyes of the law, and will set a precedent for insurance companies paying out claims based on 'driver responsibility'.
“The comprehensive insurance on the car is unlikely to pay for the damage if she says she wasn’t in control of the vehicle … Further, to my knowledge there hasn't been a case in Australia involving the use of autonomous technology in an accident and it will be up to the court to determine liability here."
The run part: I think they're a young overseas resident who panicked. They returned and handed themselves in to police at the scene. A lot of younger foreigners have no idea what to do in an accident and in their home economy can face retribution, extortion, sometimes at the hands of police. In Australia, you stay, you help the victim, you report the accident. That's the law. In theory all drivers should know this bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others, so I naturally believe others more.
Tesla doesn't advertise. Tesla doesn't even have a PR department… they closed it. >Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others link? waiting…
- https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
- https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne...
The run part: I think they're a young overseas resident who panicked. They returned and handed themselves in to police at the scene. A lot of younger foreigners have no idea what to do in an accident and in their home economy can face retribution, extortion, sometimes at the hands of police. In Australia, you stay, you help the victim, you report the accident. That's the law. In theory all drivers should know this bu…
Ignorance is no excuse for not following the law
1. A driver who drove off after an accident claims they were using Autopilot at the time. 2. The road photographed in the article isn't a highway, and so I'm not sure it would be accepted by regular Autopilot. 3. Whilst FSD might accept that road, FSD isn't available in Australia. I think the driver's claim that Autopilot was in use needs to be questioned.
Autopilot operates on normal roads. It’s essentially lane following and dynamic cruise control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_East,_Victoria#/medi...
In the future, perhaps Teslas will handle this well, but you only need to watch a few videos of them encountering similar markings on YouTube to know that this type of road currently results in massive confusion for a Tesla.
> A hit-and-run incident in Melbourne yesterday could set a legal precedent for the use of autonomous driving technologies in Australia. There is no precedent to be set. If you are behind the wheel of a car you are responsible for it's operation. 'Autopilot' or not. And hard to say it was the autopilot's fault for driving off and returning to the police station two hours later.
Well, Mercedes takes legal responsibility for its Autopilot, unlike Tesla.
If you choose to use some kind of driver assist to get you there that’s a decision you as the driver made and you are responsible for the consequences of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Mercedes takes legal responsibility for its Autopilot, unlike Tesla.
Mercedes says they will only take legal responsibility "while the system is active." The system will deactivate and hand control (and liability) right back to the human just in the nick of time if it encounters any marginal conditions (stormy weather, presence of emergency vehicles, etc…). So it looks like just an attempt to one-up Tesla with a marketing gimmick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we're a good 25 years out from a truly autonomous, road-worthy, self-driving human transport. It sounds like your reasoning goes like this: my interactions with things which are supposedly AI are bad. Self-driving cars are also some form of AI, therefore self-driving cars must be bad and or far away too. Did I understood you right? The problem with that logic is that there is nothing in common in implementation…
>But the failure modes and shortcomings of these systems are considered and reasoned about the same way you would do the same with a good old-fashioned kalman-filter based sub-system. My personal definition of what constitutes "AI" includes emergent behavior as a prerequisite. To lack emergence is to be a programmable logic controller. Do these systems you're talking about exhibit emergence? If so, how can you possib…
What is your definition of emergence? I found this one on wikipedia:
“In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.”
If i go by this then yes such a system exhibits emergence. The whole has the property of driving the car while the parts alone don’t. But so does an elevator: neither the winch, the cable, or the shaft lifts people up alone, but the whole of it together does.
> If so, how can you possibly reason about their failure modes?
Same way you do it about an elevator? Its “just” much more complex because the operational domain is much more complex.
The run part: I think they're a young overseas resident who panicked. They returned and handed themselves in to police at the scene. A lot of younger foreigners have no idea what to do in an accident and in their home economy can face retribution, extortion, sometimes at the hands of police. In Australia, you stay, you help the victim, you report the accident. That's the law. In theory all drivers should know this bu…
I don't think Law is much different in any country, maybe in some countries it is not respected due to the possibilities of retribution/extortion you mention.
