4 ms·
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/29/google-self-driving-car-accident-california https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/29/google-se...
by astazangasta 10y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/29/google-self-driving-car-accident-california https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/29/google-se...
Here is an example of the car failing for precisely the sorts of reasons I describe above.
- coldtea 10y agoNote what it says: "“Our test driver, who had been watching the bus in the mirror, also expected the bus to slow or stop". So he made the same assumption as the car did. So what else could it do, magically guess? Self-driving cars are not infallible -- they model the same assumptions we do. But a benefit is that they can also react much faster than we do -- which won't always save the day of course: if some idiot driving against the traffic, for example, suddenly appears in front of such a car, they will still be an accident in all probability.
- astazangasta 10y agoThis thing drove into a bus, and, also, didn't learn and needed to be reprogrammed so it would drive into buses again. You are being a credulous fanatic, and I am done.
- coldtea 10y ago>This thing drove into a bus As have thousands of actual human drivers -- and worse. The human driver also said that he thought the bus would do the same thing the car "brain" thought it would. >You are being a credulous fanatic, and I am done. Oh, the irony.