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

San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 504 posts

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#371

Post by helloworld11 »

gouggoug wrote: post #360
helloworld11 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor do you get to choose when someone's airplane possibly crashes into your street from above.

There were 9 airplane crashes, worldwide, in 2021[1]. It's estimated 31,720 people died in car crashes, in the US, in 2021[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_an... [2] https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/nhtsa-estimates...

True, but you miss my point in referring to this. You still don't get to choose when someone else's mistake might harm you. Also, we as the public in general routinely trust planes with millions of risky flights despite not knowing anything about how well or safely they work, or how they work at all in detail. We accept that accidents sometimes happen nonetheless because that's how it goes with human technology that we've come to depend on. The important thing is that precautions are taken as much as reasonably possible. The same standard can be applied to driverless cars without getting fearful of them simply because of their newness.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#372

Post by akira2501 »

kylecordes wrote: post #331
jwr wrote: post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

Maybe now is the time to start raising the bar on human and upcoming automated drivers. Both could have to pass a driving test that includes challenging, difficult situations. Day, night, rain, snow, fog, heavy traffic, missing lane lines, simulated pedestrians (including small children) leaping out between parked cars, and more. For further difficulty, both kinds of drivers could have to pass this within a x% margin…

There's not a lot of evidence to suggest this would have a major impact.

The majority of fatal crashes involve drugs and alcohol and not people with "untested skills in challenging situations."

Pedestrians and motorcyclists account for a little less than 1/3 of all fatalities.

Young men are 8x more likely to die in a car accident than their female counterparts.

This "user-hostile" mode of thinking about driving serves no one.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#374

Post by dogman144 »

jwr wrote: post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

This is the most challenging transition with tech in terms of the outcomes and the difficulty defining just what this trend is.

Cybernetics is* ~insertion of a governance layer into our social contract that we didn't agree to relinquish our agency to... It just sort of happened, and we deal with the outcomes. The more disconcerting aspect to me is the latter. Suddenly, QR codes everywhere, good luck getting around without a smart phone, if that driverless car sideswipes you and doesn't stop, call someone I guess?

If this area/trend interests you, there is a lot of reading available from the weird (CCRU, early Nick Land) to the fairly mechanical/academic (MIT, Norbert Wiener), to the openly behavioral governance-themed (Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, B.J. Fogg), to adversarial-to-tech (The Cybernetic Hypothesis).

* so-so definition of the space, but its the best I can sum it up.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#375

Post by jonny_eh »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #352
jonny_eh wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're quoting the Unabomber now? Certainly you can choose good quotes from non-serial killers.

Why not? It is a good and relevant point.

Because it justifies their actions. Would we be quoting him if he didn't murder innocent people?

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#376

Post by gouggoug »

helloworld11 wrote: post #371
gouggoug wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were 9 airplane crashes, worldwide, in 2021[1]. It's estimated 31,720 people died in car crashes, in the US, in 2021[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_an... [2] https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/nhtsa-estimates...

True, but you miss my point in referring to this. You still don't get to choose when someone else's mistake might harm you. Also, we as the public in general routinely trust planes with millions of risky flights despite not knowing anything about how well or safely they work, or how they work at all in detail. We accept that accidents sometimes happen nonetheless because that's how it goes with human technology that…

But driverless cars do not go through the same requirements as aviation.

Before an airplane goes into circulation, it has gone through extremely rigorous testing. An airplane also always has a pilot.

The same can't be said for driverless cars. They don't go through extreme rigorous testing, they don't have a driver, and they're controlled by software that is most likely a far cry from aviation standards.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#377

Post by root_axis »

dfxm12 wrote: post #275
kadoban wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That teenage driver goes through a training and certification process, and we have ways of stopping them from driving if they fuck up too badly. They also have liability for their actions. Most of those are lacking or at least inconsistent, for AI driving.

That teenage driver goes through a training and certification process, and we have ways of stopping them from driving if they fuck up too badly. This is a complete aside, but not having a license doesn't really prevent you from getting in a car and driving it. I was just reminded of this when a buddy's parked car was struck by a drunk driver who was not legally licensed to drive because their license was revoked from…

Kind of a moot point though. You can't really stop anyone from doing anything, the best we can do in a free society is create laws that deter undesirable behavior.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#378

Post by dogman144 »

jonny_eh wrote: post #326
snikeris wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the problems with technology that Ted Kaczynski wrote about. You can't opt out. > Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the…

We're quoting the Unabomber now? Certainly you can choose good quotes from non-serial killers.

Fwiw, at the time and after, there were quite a few conferences and analysis of his manifesto.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#379

Post by stonkdonk »

jwr wrote: post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

plus the "beta" testers treat it like some kind of fun game. they're like "whoops, almost swerved into traffic. whoops, almost ran into a pedestrian crossing the street."

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#380

Post by skylanh »

dogman144 wrote: post #367
ethanbond wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither aircraft nor drug development norms look anything like the norms of software development. I actually find a substantial difference in my trust level between a traditional car company that's building self-driving capabilities (e.g. Mercedes) than a company that fashions itself as a software company that happens to build cars (e.g. Tesla) for exactly the reason of the norms and behaviors that each org would enc…

Generally agree but also knew people who worked on Boeing QA/SWE and the internal picture sounds dicy. I'm a bit disconcerted flying after learning about it.

Boeing's issues were written on the wall about 2 decades ago when it moved it's hierarchy from an engineer-centric one to a Chicago accountant-centric one. That alone wouldn't have been an issue, but they had an immediate brain drain as half their HQ staff didn't follow the relocation.

Imagine a thousand employees, half your HQ staff, that leave. There are several possible reasons:

- they're older -> more corporate knowledge and knew the "magic recipes"

- skill based mobility -> they're so good they can go anywhere, and Chicago isn't Seattle

- etc

https://hbr.org/2001/10/inside-boeings-big-move

This was widely thought on ... what was I browsing back then? Reddit? as a fore-warner of bad stuff to come

The fore-warning came to fruition when the issues at various Boeing plants started developing over the next ten years (insider videos talking with an employee about being on drugs during crucial assembly work and shift mates being similarly high, "get it through your station" attitudes) and the Dreamliner issues that were hand-waved away (no training, 1-hour tablet self directed training, certification delays, and eventually crashes).

Post reply on HN