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

Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 568 posts

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#121

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

rkangel wrote: post #71
hd95489 wrote: post #60

I hope they defend it with a vengeance so nobody can copy it

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this as particularly evil. It's just a more efficient of what already happens in terms of care repossession. What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.

This. I anecdotally seen this happen to my wife's friends. Long story short, their credit is shot so they are forced to either purchase car by cash ( they seemingly can't ) or go to one of those places that will give them a car loan at ridiculous rate and installed with gizmos to allow easy repossession once payment is missed.

I think you would have everyone and their mother fighting against this saying you need freedom to make stupid decisions. Even I am personally on the fence. You do need better protections, but you need to have an ability to make your choices ( and in US - not having a car is not really a valid solution ).

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#122

Post by mauvehaus »

Gorbzel wrote: post #98
mauvehaus wrote: post #90

I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy[0], which AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated. This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability. Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pret…

> I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. Reduction to practice is absolutely a requirement of patent law in the US.

That seems at odds with TFA itself, which claims "Ford itself recently announced that it was giving up on its goal of developing full self-driving technology, at a cost of $2.7 billion."

Perhaps the standard for "reduction to practice [0]" is a little looser than I'm imagining. I can't even see how this would be covered by sufficiency of disclosure[1] since the apparent non-existence of level 4 or 5 autonomy suggests that no person skilled in the art[2] yet exists.

If it isn't obvious at this juncture: IANAL.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#123

Post by KarlKemp »

kube-system wrote: post #95
rkangel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this as particularly evil. It's just a more efficient of what already happens in terms of care repossession. What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.

> prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford The issue is that "Making finance accessible to low income Americans" and "predatory lending" are approximately two sides of the same coin. And so it is not politically popular.

That's part of the narrative for the financial crisis. Even without waging that particular fight, it's important to remember that, for a long time, there were plenty of barriers to full participation that had nothing to do with the individual's ability to afford something. Redlining is probably the best documented of these practices.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#124

Post by rqtwteye »

PaulHoule wrote: post #94
sokoloff wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly (on both sides). We should help people to find and choose cars they can afford. And, when someone does not pay as agreed to a significant degree, the more efficient that a repossession can happen, the better a deal can be offered to borrowers who do pay as agreed.

In the 1970s my dad found that American car dealerships had no interest in selling small and economical cars at all. Japanese car dealerships have been this way recently, before the pandemic hit we tried to buy a new Honda Fit and had to buy a used one because they had none in inventory because, allegedly, the factory had washed away in a flood but they had a row of 50 CR-Vs made in the same factory. The dealer tried…

"The automotive press uncritically reports that American consumers are crazy about huge vehicles but what I've observed is that dealers are crazy about selling huge vehicles."

Very true. Same for houses. A lot of people probably would prefer a small house over not being able to afford a big house and renting eternally. But big houses are more profitable, so that's what's being built. That's why in a lot of markets supply and demand don't really work if the supply can be restricted.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#126

Post by HarryHirsch »

kube-system wrote: post #96
makeitdouble wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re giving Ford the benefit of the doubt that it will work as described and won’t be abused. Have they earned that reputation regarding automated systems, and how will they deal with false positive/bugs etc. when the wrong car is repossessed at the worst time for its owner ?

I suspect it would be dealt with in the same way that human error is dealt with today.

Which means, not at all, look at the recent Hertz case about rental cars reported as stolen and then doubling down, because admitting to problems with the process would mean admitting to criminal intent.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#128

Post by kube-system »

PaulHoule wrote: post #115
kube-system wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your dealer doesn't know what they're talking about, which is par for the course. You couldn't find a Fit because Honda stopped importing them. They were discontinued in the US due to poor sales.

Not in my neighborhood. The Blue Honda Fit is the ideal getaway car in Tompkins County because you could do donuts in somebody's yard and they tell the cops and then they'd have to flag down every 20th car.

They're great cars, but (unfortunately) compact SUVs are far outselling them. Compare the Fit and HRV sales figures and it's clear why Honda did it.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#129

Post by kube-system »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #126
kube-system wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it would be dealt with in the same way that human error is dealt with today.

Which means, not at all, look at the recent Hertz case about rental cars reported as stolen and then doubling down, because admitting to problems with the process would mean admitting to criminal intent.

Repos and reporting cars as stolen are two different things.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#130

Post by onion2k »

mauvehaus wrote: post #90

I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy[0], which AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated. This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability. Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pret…

An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy

Not if you want to have a quiet chat with the person who's been missing their payments..

Post reply on HN