91–100 of 410 posts
Meanwhile in Jerusalem https://youtu.be/pDyMzz8HMIc
The car pulls out and immediately fails to yield to two pedestrians at a crosswalk at 0:54. One of the pedestrians is in the crosswalk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that may be level 4, but I’m not sure.
it appears you're correct... but it is a much easier problem and one that i argue has massive bang for the buck _today_. robotaxis will probably happen at scale some day. but for now, "nap through bad traffic mode" would be pretty excellent both in terms of safety and utility.
But if the cars are all driving themselves, wouldn’t they avoid that? I wonder if traffic jams would get smaller just from the lack of that one issue.
While the specs sound very underwhelming at first (geo-fenced on some roads, very low speeds, no bad weather), they seem to be so confident in their system, that they will take responsibility for the car when in autopilot. AFAIK, no other manufacturer does this for their systems (which capabilities they often make rather wild claims about).
What about legal? As in, if I'm being driven around my Mercedes-Benz while watching a movie on my phone and something happens, am I not gonna get fucked by the cops?
But there's talk of certification so this may be taken into account. One would of course want to see specifics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's such a ridiculous problem to worry about. Humans don't try to solve the trolley problem, either, I don't know why we suddenly expect computers to be able to do it. The real answer is actually simple, and it's basically the same advice for human drivers: stop the car, however you can. Don't try to swerve, don't get clever, just dynamite the brakes and hope for the best. Or as they say on the race track "both pe…
Your argument works both ways. Lets say a truck is driving on the wrong side of the road and is going to flatten the mercedes (not too uncommon as truck drivers seem to be crazy and will overtake each other). Lets say it's possible to swerve onto the footpath and squash some pedestrians in order to avoid the truck. A human driver wont be solving the trolley problem here and will probably just die. It sounds Mercedes…
The magazine writer frames it as "Mercedes is making a choice in the trolley problem, and that choice is the driver" as if that's actually a decision being made, instead of the entirely expected result of trying to slow the car enough that regular safety systems are likely to save the life of the driver. Mercedes is doing the opposite of trying to solve the trolley problem, they're declaring it pointless to try.
It's much more plausible to get the car into the "driver is very unlikely to die" kinetic range than it is to get it down to "pedestrian is very unlikely to die."
So, back to your hypothetical -- the Mercedes won't be swerving for the pedestrians, because that'll statistically increase the risk to the driver. The car may very well still get hit by that truck, but now it'll be on the driver side instead of the front crumple zone. And who knows what else happens after the car becomes ballistic because it collided with something.
While the specs sound very underwhelming at first (geo-fenced on some roads, very low speeds, no bad weather), they seem to be so confident in their system, that they will take responsibility for the car when in autopilot. AFAIK, no other manufacturer does this for their systems (which capabilities they often make rather wild claims about).
What about legal? As in, if I'm being driven around my Mercedes-Benz while watching a movie on my phone and something happens, am I not gonna get fucked by the cops?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Are you trying to scare people that their car may be disabled, when those same people already live in a society where police shoot and kill and pit maneuver drivers? Scare? No. I'm just pointing out that, just as pervasive corporate surveillance is now the norm on the internet, pervasive tracking and always-on kill switches for cars will soon become the new norm. Law enforcement will paint it exactly as you have don…
Quoted post unavailable.
[flagged]
Of any technology development I’ve ever been involved in, I’ve never really seen more false dawns, or where it seems like we’re going to break through but we don’t as I’ve seen in full self-driving. And ultimately what it comes down to is that to solve full self-driving, you actually have to solve real world artificial intelligence. Which nobody has solved. The whole road system is made for biological neural nets and eyes. And so actually, when you think about it, in order to solve full self-driving, we have to solve neural nets and cameras to a degree of a capability that is on par with, and will really exceeds humans. And I think we will achieve that this year. The best way to reach your own assessment is to join the Tesla full self-driving beta program. We have over 100,000 people right now enrolled in that program. And we expect to broaden that significantly this year. So that’s my recommendation is join the full self-driving beta program, and experience it for yourself. And take note of the rate of improvement with every release. And we put out a new release roughly every two weeks. And you’ll see a little bit of two steps forward, one step back. But overall, the rate of improvement is incredibly quick. So that’s my recommendation for reaching your own assessment is, literally try it.
"it's geofenced to certain roads, and only work under 40mph", " you should not use this in the rain" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMNnOosjrBo&ab_channel=Engad...