5 ms·

This is an incredibly pedantic definition and has nothing to do with what Google is doing. Google's car has logged driverless hours - despite where a human can

This is an incredibly pedantic definition and has nothing to do with what Google is doing. Google's car has logged driverless hours - despite where a human can be sitting. Are you seriously implying that a human sitting in the driver seat is controlling the car without touching it? If its not driverless, how is the car navigating? Through psychic powers?

sandworm101 11y ago
They are "driverless" from an internal software or technology perspective. The car is making itself move. But they are not driverless from an external/legal view. There is still a person in there that is held responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. When things go wrong, that person will still be answerable a the driver. I seriously doubt Google is sending out "drivers" without proper licenses. Equally, I cannot imagine any court dismissing a traffic ticket on the basis that the car, the robot, was the one committing the crime.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  In context of this discussion we're evaluating the technical drivelessness, not legal one, so Google cars and the hours they logged qualify.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    I'll take that under advisement so long as everyone on HN promises not to use "driverless" in the context of legal, ethical, or moral debates re google cars. The term is ubiquitous from Google no matter the context. It is their stated goal. Other companies fear any suggestion that they will field driveless cars anytime soon. I smell PR.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    I disagree; I think sandworm nailed an essential issue. At the top of this subthread, Zikes claimed that Google's cars are a "proven technology." Not even Google claims that now, and legality is indeed part of that. Driverless elevators are an example of an actual proven technology. There's no human operator standing by to jump on the manual brake in case the automation fails. And if a driverless elevator does fail and causes harm, the elevator's manufacturer can be sued for damages. Now, the idea of a "driverless" elevator seems like a silly name for just a regular elevator, but I chose that for a reason. Elevators used to have drivers, and people are already drawing the comparisons to cars: http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-driverless-elevators-drew-skepticism http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-dri... Is Google willing to assume the same type of liability for their self-driving cars? Certainly not right now, so it's hard to call their technology fully proven.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I agree with you here. Also, the example of "driverless elevator" is excellent; I'll be remembering it for consideration in further discussion about self-driving technologies. Thanks for bringing this up. Also, wtf is with downvoting in both Tesla threads today? Especially 'sandworm101 is taking a heavy hit for bringing up reasonable counterpoints (with most I disagree, but it doesn't change they're reasonable).
      - Lewton 11y ago
        His points really are not reasonable at all. He's completely ignoring that humans are generally pretty bad at driving cars and implying that AI driven cars need to be perfect before they should be replacing humans. If we banned human driving today and replaced it with the current tech (which probably isn't near being ready for actual use), we would still be far better off than we are now.
        snowwrestler 11y ago
        Where's the evidence to support this sentiment? I see it all the time and it looks to me that people just take it on faith that computers will be better. I mean, here on HN, discussions of computing products like phones and operating systems are full of complaints large and small about problems, shortcomings, etc. Are there any programmers here who think their product is bug-free and safely survives all edge cases? There just seems to be a huge mismatch between how people think about computers they use today, and computers they expect to drive their car in the near future. But it all comes out of the same companies and software development processes. I also don't think people know the stats on car safety. The injury rate is 75 per 100 million miles traveled. About 35,000 people died from vehicle accidents in 2013. That sounds like a lot, but more people died from the flu, or from falls, than died from cars. I won't deny that vehicle travel is dangerous, but the question is why we think computers would be better at it than humans, who are already pretty darn good at it.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

They are "driverless" from an internal software or technology perspective. The car is making itself move. But they are not driverless from an external/legal view. There is still a person in there that is held responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. When things go wrong, that person will still be answerable a the driver. I seriously doubt Google is sending out "drivers" without proper licenses. Equally, I cannot imagine any court dismissing a traffic ticket on the basis that the car, the robot, was the one committing the crime.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
In context of this discussion we're evaluating the technical drivelessness, not legal one, so Google cars and the hours they logged qualify.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  I'll take that under advisement so long as everyone on HN promises not to use "driverless" in the context of legal, ethical, or moral debates re google cars. The term is ubiquitous from Google no matter the context. It is their stated goal. Other companies fear any suggestion that they will field driveless cars anytime soon. I smell PR.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  I disagree; I think sandworm nailed an essential issue. At the top of this subthread, Zikes claimed that Google's cars are a "proven technology." Not even Google claims that now, and legality is indeed part of that. Driverless elevators are an example of an actual proven technology. There's no human operator standing by to jump on the manual brake in case the automation fails. And if a driverless elevator does fail and causes harm, the elevator's manufacturer can be sued for damages. Now, the idea of a "driverless" elevator seems like a silly name for just a regular elevator, but I chose that for a reason. Elevators used to have drivers, and people are already drawing the comparisons to cars: http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-driverless-elevators-drew-skepticism http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-dri... Is Google willing to assume the same type of liability for their self-driving cars? Certainly not right now, so it's hard to call their technology fully proven.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I agree with you here. Also, the example of "driverless elevator" is excellent; I'll be remembering it for consideration in further discussion about self-driving technologies. Thanks for bringing this up. Also, wtf is with downvoting in both Tesla threads today? Especially 'sandworm101 is taking a heavy hit for bringing up reasonable counterpoints (with most I disagree, but it doesn't change they're reasonable).
    - Lewton 11y ago
      His points really are not reasonable at all. He's completely ignoring that humans are generally pretty bad at driving cars and implying that AI driven cars need to be perfect before they should be replacing humans. If we banned human driving today and replaced it with the current tech (which probably isn't near being ready for actual use), we would still be far better off than we are now.
      - snowwrestler 11y ago
        Where's the evidence to support this sentiment? I see it all the time and it looks to me that people just take it on faith that computers will be better. I mean, here on HN, discussions of computing products like phones and operating systems are full of complaints large and small about problems, shortcomings, etc. Are there any programmers here who think their product is bug-free and safely survives all edge cases? There just seems to be a huge mismatch between how people think about computers they use today, and computers they expect to drive their car in the near future. But it all comes out of the same companies and software development processes. I also don't think people know the stats on car safety. The injury rate is 75 per 100 million miles traveled. About 35,000 people died from vehicle accidents in 2013. That sounds like a lot, but more people died from the flu, or from falls, than died from cars. I won't deny that vehicle travel is dangerous, but the question is why we think computers would be better at it than humans, who are already pretty darn good at it.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago