11–20 of 201 posts
Both Autopilot and FSD (Fools Self Driving) needs to be investigated urgently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The driver is still liable right? Is it still the driver’s responsibility or keeping aware and ready to react or is the autopilot software allowed to autonomously drive these days?
Tesla should be liable by virtue of calling things 'autopilot' or 'full self driving' which aren't.
From the origin of autopilot from its aviation history, its pretty clear that autopilot was not designed to prevent you from hitting things.
I always think it's weird how instead of just improving public transit, we've all become fixated on self driving vehicles. Good transit would mean most people don't need to operate a vehicle while having a plethora of other benefits like combating climate change and more efficient land use (if you live in a suburb, take note of the sheer amount land dedicated to parking; it's often more land than the store for retail…
Meanwhile, huge amounts of money is spent on improving mass transit. It's fairly conventional wisdom that it's a good thing. (The money doesn't seem to go very far though, compared to the need.)
I always think it's weird how instead of just improving public transit, we've all become fixated on self driving vehicles. Good transit would mean most people don't need to operate a vehicle while having a plethora of other benefits like combating climate change and more efficient land use (if you live in a suburb, take note of the sheer amount land dedicated to parking; it's often more land than the store for retail…
Transit is not a replacement for cars in USA outside of the densest urban cores, and those areas are paradoxically the worst offenders for crime, drugs, and other urban issues which keep many off of transit.
I always think it's weird how instead of just improving public transit, we've all become fixated on self driving vehicles. Good transit would mean most people don't need to operate a vehicle while having a plethora of other benefits like combating climate change and more efficient land use (if you live in a suburb, take note of the sheer amount land dedicated to parking; it's often more land than the store for retail…
If, let’s say ubers and taxis paid a tax when they rode around without passengers and that tax specifically went to road upkeep and construction, that would close the gap. But this takes policy change, and engineers not only cannot independently make that fix in a democracy; they think they know better than democracy because they know how to program a car in a simulated road in abstraction.
So, not only is the focus often misplaced towards IT solutions, those IT solutions often accelerate the underlying problem. Whereas there are policy solutions but they require smart young politicians and just flat getting out the vote and encouraging optimism for progress through an imperfect but best available democratic system.
The amazingly fast capabilities of modern IT should not be unfairly compared to the more difficult democratic process; leading us to lose faith in the more equitable practice of democracy. Let’s be humble enough to know when we personally are not subject matter experts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The driver is still liable right? Is it still the driver’s responsibility or keeping aware and ready to react or is the autopilot software allowed to autonomously drive these days?
Tesla should be liable by virtue of calling things 'autopilot' or 'full self driving' which aren't.
Ironically in these situations a more understated name would probably work better for PR. Headline of "Tesla on cruise control rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider" gives a much stronger impression of it being the driver's fault.
Actually, scratch that: what matter is that the autopilot sounds cool and high tech. Given that, who cares about the casualties?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla should be liable by virtue of calling things 'autopilot' or 'full self driving' which aren't.
Something that just flies an aircraft straight and level is still an autopilot, so I don't think it's a totally inaccurate metaphor. Ironically in these situations a more understated name would probably work better for PR. Headline of "Tesla on cruise control rear ends motorcycle on freeway, killing rider" gives a much stronger impression of it being the driver's fault.
Aircraft manufacturers are liable when their vehicles crash due to malfunction.
I always think it's weird how instead of just improving public transit, we've all become fixated on self driving vehicles. Good transit would mean most people don't need to operate a vehicle while having a plethora of other benefits like combating climate change and more efficient land use (if you live in a suburb, take note of the sheer amount land dedicated to parking; it's often more land than the store for retail…
1) How expensive and disruptive to build would "good transit" actually be?
2) How much do people appreciate more direct point-to-point transportation?
This incident occured in a town of 51,000 people with a density of 1,700/sq mile, that looks like a suburb of Salt Lake City which itself has 200,000 people with a density of 1,800/sq mile.
What's the cost and timetable for turning that into a transit-friendly city even if everyone wanted to have smaller homes in a presumably-more-dense footprint?
On the other hand, self-driving cars would sit on top of existing infrastructure to enable even more personal privacy and land use. So even if people were 50/50 which way to go, the latter would likely be far cheaper.
If you go back 100 years and prevent cars from ever be mass-produced, yeah, American cities would've grown and suburbanized in a more British, rail-oriented way. But reversing that would be far, far harder.
I always think it's weird how instead of just improving public transit, we've all become fixated on self driving vehicles. Good transit would mean most people don't need to operate a vehicle while having a plethora of other benefits like combating climate change and more efficient land use (if you live in a suburb, take note of the sheer amount land dedicated to parking; it's often more land than the store for retail…
It doesn't seem like all that many people are all that crazy about self-driving cars? It's a frequent topic of conversation because some companies have invested a lot of money in it. But people express fairly negative sentiments about it. Meanwhile, huge amounts of money is spent on improving mass transit. It's fairly conventional wisdom that it's a good thing. (The money doesn't seem to go very far though, compared…
I think that many people(including me) do not belive in self driving cars. I "know" there will be no level 5 self driving car anytime soon so why would I be excited? All the current and "near future" self driving cars seem to have a steering wheel so they are "fake self driving cars" and I'm not interested in that. Why would I use a self driving car if I still have to keep my hands on the steering wheel? I would be more worried that the car could get into an accident by itself and I would be blamed.
Then the more you learn about the tech the more I get worried. The car is supposed to drive itself based on solved captcha or an army of people trying to label everything?? I don't want to be anywhere near a "fake self driving car".
Self driving cars are like those miracle cures for aging or cancer that seem to work only on rats or in lab specific conditions. One day they will work on humans but you never know the day.
So if a miracle happens and "real" self driving cars are developed I think all the people will go crazy after them just like for a miracle drug to reverse aging.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/02/health/reverse-aging-life...