611–620 of 652 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. It needs to be more flexible than other current robots, but definitely not AGI.
Really? You think full autonomous that's better than human drivers is not AGI? Perhaps time will tell if your opinion is right.
I mean, we already have cars that can handle driving themselves in some contexts (e.g. Waymo in suburban Phoenix) but we're obviously nowhere close to AGI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can confirm from personal experience in crosswalks with self driving cars: cruise is the most timid (read safest!) of the self driving cars being tested in SF IMHO. Cruise will proactively alter trajectory (such as deceleration) for pedestrians and cyclists at a noticeably earlier threshold than Waymo. This is much more pleasant for everyone surrounding the vehicle as it clearly expresses that you have been recognize…
Unfortunately, during the massive storms in the fall, I witnessed a Cruise car drive right through an intersection where the lights were out. I witnessed a Waymo car make the stop at the same intersection. I live above said intersection and watch it a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Virtually all auto accidents in which a third-party fatality occurs result in criminal liability. It's extremely rare for a third-party fatality in an auto accident to be caused by something other than criminal negligence or intent.
Most auto accidents that cause death don’t involve third parties. And there are shockingly a lot of people killed in auto accidents, only a very small percentage of those result in prison time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the credit for creating two wildly successful companies From reading comments in other similar threads I seen the argument that Elon did not created Tesla, so maybe would be more honest to rephrase your "created" wording, I am wondering how many people know that Elon did not created Tesla so he is assigned the role just because of his big social media presence.
Apparently Tesla was: founded (as Tesla Motors) on July 1, 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, California. It gets a bit more complicated however: Ian Wright was the third employee, joining a few months later. The three went looking for venture capital funding in January 2004 and connected with Elon Musk, who contributed US$6.5 million of the initial (Series A) US$7.5 million round of investmen…
When Bob created his company X and later got some money from his dead uncle your "created" definition will assign the dead uncle the creator of X, I really want to see this definition, but don't segfault if you can't manage it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, knowing that self-driving cars are 100% liable would incentivize some people to attempt to be hit by one of these vehicles for a payout. A more realistic level of liability would be for 100% liability for accidents resulting from an "unforced error".
I still think the cars should anticipate risks and behave accordingly. Out and out fraud aside, they should basically never injure anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have public transit right now. All we need to do is to not stigmatize its users.
With the urban sprawl in the US you frequently will need to at least change vehicle once and that will likely involve a substantial wait and might involve a walk at least on one end. This quickly can turn what could take 15-20 minutes into a hour or more. A docking model as the parent suggest might address this. I'm also gonna go out there and say what many are afraid to talk about openly. When I used to commute by p…
smh
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...no weird routes to tack on extra fees. At first. They will optimize that later.
There's no need for that. Rideshare drivers' pay overwhelmingly goes to cost of labor rather than fuel or maintenance, especially in big cities. Uber/Lyft take another 25-40% from the gross fare the passenger pays. Cruise will be capturing all of that and only needs to pass a fraction on to the consumer to get an unassailable price advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think I’m moving the goalposts - we were discussing whether autonomous driving (which I take to mean L4-L5 driving without the need for a human in the loop) is possible without geofences or HD maps. “Edge cases in some random small town” are exactly the sort of thing you need to worry about without a geofence. Not to mention these sorts of edge cases are way more common in large cities than small towns - one…
> edge cases are way more common It’s not a question of parsing a known sign, even extremely complex rules can be encoded. Further that process can take place from a photo of the sign uploaded by the car to then be encoded by the rules. The general case is stopping and having a remote driver slowly tell the car what to do. An unknown sign in a place without cellphone reception is about the only case where it really n…
So you’re now agreeing that you need some level of remote support to handle edge cases like this?
>An unknown sign in a place without cellphone reception is about the only case where it really need to just figure it out on it’s own rather than simply avoid causing an accident.
Yes, and again, this is the sort of thing you actually need to worry about when trying to come up with generalized self driving solution.
> Not much, people regularly disobey traffic signs especially ones with complex instructions. Don’t hit stuff or jump in front of another car is generally enough.
What if it misinterprets a one way sign at night when there’s no other signal that it’s turning on to a one way lane and it suddenly finds itself traveling opposite the direction of traffic for a long period before encountering another car? You have to consider all of these edge cases when talking about a generalized solution.
Maybe you still disagree with me in sprit, but do you see how when we really look at edge cases how you have to fall back to some level of remote operation or mapping?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The human accident rate is about one per 500K miles, so if they were able to get in that range, then yes, they would have succeeded; drivers would be able to stop paying attention to the road without putting themselves and others in danger. Unfortunately, I expect that automation will be held to a higher standard than human drivers, rather than the same standard. When an accident happens, people want to know who to…
> Unfortunately, I expect that automation will be held to a higher standard than human drivers, rather than the same standard. The average driver in a crash is worse than the average driver. Why would we compare FSD with reckless drunks, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most auto accidents that cause death don’t involve third parties. And there are shockingly a lot of people killed in auto accidents, only a very small percentage of those result in prison time.
Exactly why I specified. Multi-party fatal accidents are rare, but they usually involve drunk driving or gross negligence/recklessness