4 ms·
There's a human backup in the car itself. I don't see why you'd need remote control until we're ready to let cars drive without passengers which is a lot furthe
by mnm1 10y ago
There's a human backup in the car itself. I don't see why you'd need remote control until we're ready to let cars drive without passengers which is a lot further away than cars driving with people in the car. What kind of car would not have some sort of a manual override anyway? That'd be incredibly stupid to the point of gross negligence.
Also, the posted title is clickbait bullshit and not the actual title of the article.
- intopieces 10y agoGoogle is actively promoting a self-driving technology that doesn't need a human to take over, ever. Their commercial for this technology features a blind man being driven by a car around Austin, TX. As well, the prototype at the Computer History Museum is a model that does not feature a steering wheel at all. The thesis of the article is that the promises made by these companies -- and the promises are being made -- are not quite feasible in the short term. So what kind of car would not have some sort of manual override? The car that all these companies are promising!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- BipolarElsa 10y agoWhen you fly in an airplane the pilot is basically checked out the entire time because of autopilot. Over thousands of miles, too. But guess what? They have steering wheels (or whatever it is you call them) and manual control when things get dicey. Point of person above you is that this should always be a feature of driverless cars: manual control. Always. I know Alphabet is peddling some blind-person shit, but let's be real, that's many year away (2050+) and would be for limited use cases.