61–70 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand why so many people hate Tesla, but they aren't allowed to drive fully automated without a human monitoring them, so not the same situation.
There are videos of Tesla drivers sleeping on the driver's seat while FSD are running. How is that is monitoring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of AVs is that they are a safety layer.
No, the whole point of AVs, like any other product of a for-profit business, is that they make the manufacturers money. A part of the sales pitch for AVs is that autonomy acts as a safety layer. As with any sales pitch, the interest of the manufacturer is often more in getting people to believe the pitch than in it being true, validating that it is true is a concern of outside parties. Insofar as AV adoption requires…
According to Cruise's X(Twitter) account [0], the suspension seems to be related to an incident in which a human driver hit-and-run propelled a pedestrian in front of a Cruise AV and the Cruise vehicle couldn't avoid hitting the person. When that incident was first reported [1], it seemed like a situation where if it was a human driver in the Cruise vehicle, they wouldn't be found to be at any fault. However given th…
While clearly the initial accident was caused by the hit-and-run driver, when the Cruise went to pull over because it detected an accident, it drop on top of the pedestrian AND STOPPED right on her - "hurled her into the path of a driverless taxi that then ran her over, stopping on top of her as she screamed in pain". This poor woman was involved in two accidents really, and it is fair to shut down Cruise until they…
These autonomous cars have done some truly dumb things, but I don't think this incident is so obviously bad.
Meanwhile, the human driver who actually hit her first, and then fled the scene, still hasn't been found...
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/woman-run-autono...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not believe "it's as dangerous as a human driver" is a good reason to look past all the problems with self-driving cars. There should be a higher standard than that.
Let's not forget that the companies that develop and lobby for self driving cars do it for profit. Whatever safety qualities they may or may not have are there to deliver and maximize profit. At this point in time. Public transport is a safer alternative but not as profitable
As a pedestrian I'm not a fan of being an unwitting part of a private company's beta testing. Before this devolves into whatboutism vs the safety of human drivers, my opposition is to adding yet another unknown safety layer to walking down the street. Usually when private companies are developing products that could kill, drugs for example, it is on the company to exhaustively prove the safety and effectiveness befor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the whole point of AVs, like any other product of a for-profit business, is that they make the manufacturers money. A part of the sales pitch for AVs is that autonomy acts as a safety layer. As with any sales pitch, the interest of the manufacturer is often more in getting people to believe the pitch than in it being true, validating that it is true is a concern of outside parties. Insofar as AV adoption requires…
Profitability will be needed for companies to succeed but it's not the point. Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road?
Yes, it is.
> Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road?
Yes, along with a pile of other moonshots. That's what moonshots are for.
There's a lot of profit potential in AVs, and even if you fail at it there is a lot of potential for profitable spinoffs of the research.
And if you fail at both, well, moonshots are high-risk, high-reward.
Is there evidence that Cruise is more dangerous than a human driver?
I do not believe "it's as dangerous as a human driver" is a good reason to look past all the problems with self-driving cars. There should be a higher standard than that.
Is there something specific that caused this halt on Cruise's testing permits?