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

Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

mysanantonio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 220 posts

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#141

Post by lupire »

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #83
fragmede wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo's are not about to run a person or bicyclist over. Just walk in front of them and they'll stop for you to cross. You can always start livestreaming if you don't believe it, the insurance payout would be amazing . (Subject to the laws of physics, naturally.) Source: Haven't been run over yet by one, and I live in one of their current markets.

> Waymo's are not about to run a person or bicyclist over. This has only introduced more novel problems. People can completely immobilize the vehicles by standing in front of them, or placing a traffic cone. (And while this is kind of funny when done to unused vehicles to bother a multi-trillion dollar corporation. It is not funny when it's done to harass women.) This in turn spirals into a whole new set of political…

Rolling out Waymo more broadly will help bring these criminals to justice, as there crimes will be recorded by an unflappably peaceful victim.

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#142

Post by AngryData »

prhn wrote: post #7

At the risk of sounding ignorant, why didn't the various police cruisers and even the ambulance itself just push the damn thing out of the way? That's what the push bars attached to the front of their vehicles are for.

The cops only do that if they can be sure they will be able to charge someone else for the damages. For their vehicle, for their "injuries", and also adding in to their department bonuses, but they get none of that if they can't charge somebody with a crime easily. Ambulances aren't really made to do that and are crazy expensive, plus the drivers would likely be taking on a bunch of the liability from the crash, although the ambulance itself likely would survive just fine because they are tough. The fire department are the only ones that have the trifecta of vehicles made to push other vehicles out of the way, are not paid by the extent that they can extort people for money, and are not going to be held liable for damages.

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#143

Post by fdgg »

furyofantares wrote: post #42
cj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are to believe Waymo’s safety stats, they have less accidents/injuries per mile driven. But whether or not reducing injuries at a statistical level outweighs the downside of autonomous vehicles causing accidents (even at lower rates) is a bit of a dilemma.

The human side of those stats, whenever I've seen them presented next to self-driving car stats, has always been an aggregate of all human driving, a vast amount of which is in environments or conditions that Waymo doesn't operate in.

Shh stop speaking sense to blind technologists.

The road to mass adoption of autonomous vehicles probably wont happen in any poster's lifetime on this board. The reality is most people on here are quite narrow minded and can't 'understand' why it is not as easy as "hey I found a stat that shows Waymo is safer than humans!!11!".

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#144

Post by piloto_ciego »

gruez wrote: post #135
grayhatter wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really need someone sitting in jail to satisfy your justice boner? Literally, and intentionally avoiding any attempt to examine the implications? No probably not. But reasonable punishment discourages bad behavior. And software engineers have a habit of ignoring the implications of a defective design. I think apocalyptic fines applied to the companies creating the systems for automated cars would also create…

>But reasonable punishment discourages bad behavior. And software engineers have a habit of ignoring the implications of a defective design. I think apocalyptic fines applied to the companies creating the systems for automated cars would also create the correct incentives, but I find that to be less likely than imprisonment. This just feels like the "we should make the justice system harsher to deter crime" argument…

A lot of people can't really get over the idea that they want to be the boss of everything.

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#145

Post by gruez »

wnevets wrote: post #137
usefulcat wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really asking whether corporations can be sued?

And have actual meaningful consequences happen? I'am. Twitter is creating CSAM, Meta & OpenAI pirate millions of books and Nvidia is playing some sort of shell game to pump their stock price. If a regular person committed any of those offenses once they would be lucky to just to be sued but because of "AI" nothing happens to these companies.

Going through each of the cases:

>Twitter is creating CSAM

It's unclear whether generated CSAM is illegal, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn.... Moreover x/x.ai wasn't intentionally generating the images. Yes, someone intentionally set up grok to generate images, but nobody at x/x.ai was like "yes, let's generate some CSAM". That adds an additional layer of obfuscation that makes it harder to compare to a "regular person".

>Meta & OpenAI pirate millions of books

Give me a break. People on /r/datahoarders pirate millions of books all the time. Use a VPN and basically nobody bothers going after you. If anything Meta/OpenAI are getting harsher treatment than the average person because they're juicier defendants.

>Nvidia is playing some sort of shell game to pump their stock price

That's not even something that's illegal.

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#146

Post by wnevets »

gruez wrote: post #145
wnevets wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And have actual meaningful consequences happen? I'am. Twitter is creating CSAM, Meta & OpenAI pirate millions of books and Nvidia is playing some sort of shell game to pump their stock price. If a regular person committed any of those offenses once they would be lucky to just to be sued but because of "AI" nothing happens to these companies.

Going through each of the cases: >Twitter is creating CSAM It's unclear whether generated CSAM is illegal, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... . Moreover x/x.ai wasn't intentionally generating the images. Yes, someone intentionally set up grok to generate images, but nobody at x/x.ai was like "yes, let's generate some CSAM". That adds an additional layer of obfuscation that makes it h…

> It's unclear whether generated CSAM is illegal, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn

We both know you don't actually believe that because neither of us would post generated CSAM.

> That adds an additional layer of obfuscation that makes it harder to compare to a "regular person".

That is literally my point?

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#147

Post by foinker »

tt24 wrote: post #105
pigbearpig wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a break. The problem is the Waymo that is blocking a lane sideways and is not pulling forward out of the way of the ambulance, a move that even the worst human drivers would likely know to do. It does no good to pretend there aren't problems with self-driving cars or make excuses. It's not about the other entities.

Why are we focusing on entity A when the parent comment correctly pointed out entities B and C are not blameless either?

We're focusing on the waymo because it did this on its own for some inscrutable reason and there is no individual accountability, which is a far more useful discussion to be having if we are supposed to trust these things to be replacing humans on the road. The humans behavior is only relevant in the sense that now all humans on the road have an additional hazard to factor in: errant waymos that you can't gesture to or yell at or honk at or make any attempt to understand their intentions.

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#148

Post by plagiarist »

gruez wrote: post #131
plagiarist wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, let's go. Prorated in terms of their percentage of ownership, of course. Put them in jail for a few seconds as well.

I'm sure it's a productive use of the already overburdened justice system's time to round up half the country, so they can sit in "jail" for a few minutes.

No shit. Maybe we let everyone with only a few seconds to serve just walk free without pursing a case on them at all. The people owning 90% of all stocks can serve 90% of all the sentencing and that'd be fine enough for society.

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#149

Post by bsder »

NewJazz wrote: post #111
rogerrogerr wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want them to put googley eyes on it? If you can see it, it can see you. Pretty simple. Eye contact matters for humans because they might be looking at their phones, or their McDonald's fries, or staring straight into the sun. None of these things happen with self-driving cars. It's a non-issue.

That would actually be great. Some kind of eye brow raise, a gesture, any recognition/indication that it perceives a life to preserve.

Erm, have you ever taken a Waymo and watched the detection screen?

If you can see it, it sees you. Period. I guarantee it.

It can see and gives special priority to humans. I have watched it mark people at night that I couldn't see at all.

Doing weird shit on the road? Certainly possible. Missing seeing a human? Definitely not happening.

Re: Waymo blocking ambulance during deadly Austin shooting

#150

Post by Edman274 »

tt24 wrote: post #105
pigbearpig wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a break. The problem is the Waymo that is blocking a lane sideways and is not pulling forward out of the way of the ambulance, a move that even the worst human drivers would likely know to do. It does no good to pretend there aren't problems with self-driving cars or make excuses. It's not about the other entities.

Why are we focusing on entity A when the parent comment correctly pointed out entities B and C are not blameless either?

Yes, why are we still talking about the robot whose behavior can be programmed and whose behavior is set by a company and rolled out to all of their vehicles deterministically, when another commenter correctly engaged in whataboutism?
Post reply on HN