31–40 of 1001 posts
What seems odd to me is that hardly anyone in SF seems to want them there (citizens, officials) yet it keeps getting pushed through?
Same with doordash as an earlier example, endless articles about how terrible doordash and Uber are while a large percentage of people in SF use it.
First, where is the data? Second, yeah, it's bananas to test large, fast, heavy robots on public streets. The only reason we let it happen is because the robots look like cars. Third, it's bananas to have large, fast, heavy vehicles everywhere mixed in with all the other traffic. The only reason we let it happen is a mass-marketing campaign (see "The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime" (Adam Ruins Everything) https://…
they are only allowed to run from 9pm to 5/6am though. Rode a few and they seemed perfectly safe.
Having said that, I've not seen any bad driving from them. There are certainly far worse human drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians out there on a regular basis, so I'm not against the self-driving cars being on the street.
> In San Francisco, those problems can mean self-driving cars blocking traffic, transit and emergency responders, as well as erratic behavior resulting in close calls with cyclists, pedestrians or other vehicles. I have mixed feelings about how to test self-driving vehicles (mostly stemming from ignorance). But at some point don't you have to get this stuff out in the wild to see how it behaves or else we are resigne…
Uber’s driverless vehicle killed someone jaywalking at night in another state. So you can’t say they’ve never killed anyone. Plus Teslas have killed their own occupants plenty of times.
The two decades during which human oversight of automated systems will be mandatory would be long enough for me to finish off my career getting paid to drive while I sit in a cab writing code, periodically checking over the status of my lead truck and the two or three slaved trucks following me.
> In San Francisco, those problems can mean self-driving cars blocking traffic, transit and emergency responders, as well as erratic behavior resulting in close calls with cyclists, pedestrians or other vehicles. I have mixed feelings about how to test self-driving vehicles (mostly stemming from ignorance). But at some point don't you have to get this stuff out in the wild to see how it behaves or else we are resigne…
> at some point don't you have to get this stuff out in the wild to see how it behaves or else we are resigned to not making progress on this It's not my problem whether Waymo makes progress on their technology, but they make it my problem when they hit me with their car. I do have sympathy for wanting to make the progress: we might make better pacemakers faster by testing out 20 designs on 20 people. But nobody want…
Instead, they should be developed iteratively, with design prototypes that proceed from closed-course testing to supervised public testing to closed course autonomous testing, to on-road autonomy over the course of many years. This is what Waymo did. There's a reasonable argument to be made that they did this too quickly, but I can't reconcile that with your argument that they shouldn't have done it at all.
In an ideal world, there'd also be effective government oversight and public safety monitoring at every stage of the above process. Regulators haven't stepped up to do this, though AV companies have done quite a bit to stymie the oversight process as well.
So it's funny, when they first started rolling these out folks were interested, intrigued even. Folks walking would give them deference, mostly not run in front of them if they saw them, very unlike how they treat regular drivers. But now folks are getting sick of them. So they were modeling all their behavior and driving around cooperative pedestrians and cars (mostly) now they have to model for an adversarial publi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone care to explain why they downvoted this?
Probably because "training" implies direct and constant supervision, which would almost completely avoid any chance of incidents because the human is in charge at all times. Deploying an unsupervised robot on the general public for training purposes is even worse than for testing purposes.
I'm wary about using public roads to test these, but I think the way the data is presented is misleading. I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "incidents" into categories (safety, traffic, accident, etc) might be a good start. For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket. While that's an inconvenience to other drivers, it's not a safety issue at all. By the way, as a…
San Francisco won't be satisfied until they've completely driven out all the tech companies and their employees.