Driverless taxi crashes into San Francisco cyclist, injuring rider

belugabob wrote:

Driverless cars, on the other hand, will benefit from the hive mind of regular updates, and drawing from the same knowledge base.

I would love to know what tech you have that fills you with so much confidence for software update support, that 1) updates will be regular and continue for more than the first year of product release and 2) if the updates do come out they won't reduce performance for older models or just brick someone's car outright?

belugabob wrote:

The other difference, is that driverless cars don't have the same selfish motives as people, so are far less likely to get themselves into dangerous situations.

No, they are motivated by the cold instruction sets they have been programmed with. Subject to the biases of the programmers, and whatever influence their management lays down in the name of "program pressure". I don't want to be at the mercy of minimum viable product, because shareholders wanted the latest model of vehicle shipped.

Indeed - different times now but with recent news you could imagine something that made the Horizon scandal look quaint and cuddly, with the injured / the relatives being sued for damage to people's cars because "it is impossible for our vehicles to make a mistake".

You'd probably just reach a chatbot if you complained, and it would emit some emoji in sympathy and come up with "We hear your pain and we stand with you as you move forward from this!  Thank you for being a part of improving road safety for everyone!  This will now never happen again as that was yesterday evening and there have been several rounds of updates since then.  Plus we've swapped the AI VP for a better model so there's no need (or possibility) to approach the courts.  So proud you've chosen not to be a victim!"

Probably it'd be like chess software: on average they'll drive (much) better than most people, but there may be a few situations where a few humans would be better.  Plus they won't handle cases outside the model e.g. they're unlikely to stop if they see someone in distress and render assistance / do CPR, or spot the neighbour's missing cat in passing and retrieve it...

For me the best solution has always been one that's relatively simple and low tec (but everywhere) and that works *with* our human deficiencies.  Although of course this approach has its own major deficiency - it's poor at concentrating large sums of money in the hands of a few (a major motivation).

Don't you love it when people have been so brainwashed by the tech bros, that they actually spout the advertising drivel verbatim...
I bet you have disc brakes and eletronic shifting on your bike...

ROOTminus1 wrote:

. I don't want to be at the mercy of minimum viable product, because shareholders wanted the latest model of vehicle shipped.

The thing is minimum viable product is probably still better than the average human driver. However a lot of the objectively bad drivers that treat cars as toys and roads as playgrounds, are not going to be swayed into driverless cabs.

HoarseMann wrote:

"crossing into the Waymo vehicle’s path"

or did the Waymo vehicle cross into the cyclist's path?

Yes thats a interesting was of writing "Waymo decided the road was clear after the HGV and procedded. The road the waymo was crossing was not, in fact, clear" (Morgan Freeman narrator voice)

wycombewheeler wrote:

The thing is minimum viable product is probably still better than the average human driver.

How did you work that out?

john_smith wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

The thing is minimum viable product is probably still better than the average human driver.

How did you work that out?

Umm... have you met the 'average human driver'?

Yes. They can be irrational and capable of unfathomable stupidity in extreme circumstances, but there are so many human drivers putting in so many miles each, the average comes out surprisingly good.

Allow me to direct you the article @andystow shared below https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/09/herbies-revenge/#100-billion-here-100-billion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

mctrials23 wrote:

...because as far as I understand it, they are already far safer than those with a driver at the wheel.

For interactions with other motor vehicles, I don't doubt it, but the systems have proven significantly less reliable when needing to account for vulnerable road users. I don't know the data, but at a guess I'd put them as about incapable as a 30th %ile driver for avoiding collisions with peds and cyclists.

I'll own up to being an autonomous vehicle sceptic, but I don't think removing the variability of competency of the vehicle operator should be a higher priority than reducing the number of potential interactions between vehicles and vulnerable road users. Especially as the former is more profitable, whilst the right thing to do is more valuable.

mctrials23 wrote:

Its going to be interesting to see what happens with driverless cars in the next decade because as far as I understand it, they are already far safer than those with a driver at the wheel. 

That's just what they want us to think.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/09/herbies-revenge/#100-billion-here-100...

That was an interesting read, thanks!

I don't believe we'll ever get to level 5 self driving, as Tesla has shown with its "full self driving" beta program, once the car appears to be able to self drive for short distances the human driver tends to start doing something else and not pay attention as they should. This will lead to a series of incidents and a public outcry to ban the technology. To get it adopted they will have to go straight to level 5 and be perfect from day 1, its a big ask!

Level 5 would be brilliant.

I suspect (the top end and depending on definitions used) level 4 would be enough for most people though is still debatable if they will reach it.

(AIUI level 5 is can drive in all conditions;

competent level 4 should be able to give up and stop safely before it hits conditions it can't cope with (or simply refuse to start because it already knows there is an extreme weather warning to shelter in place...) 

Problem is of course that:

1. The step from level 2 (driver aid) to 'full' level 4 (automation in most conditions and can safely stop when it can't cope with no manual controls at all) is massive

2. Drivers won't accept level 4 automation (because clearly it isn't acceptable for the car to tell you and enforce that conditions are too dangerous to drive in.)

You can have level 5 today, its called a taxi.

Backladder wrote:

You can have level 5 today, its called a taxi.

You need to use taxis more often 😉

But the shock and trauma that they'll have been through though...

[sarcasm]