5 ms·
Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.
by zer00eyz 9y ago
Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story -
Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.
- pdpi 9y agoThe whole point is that uber is developing their own gear. Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. Of course they turned off the other systems.
- nmeofthestate 9y agoThey certainly averted disaster, didn't they.
- knuththetruth 9y agoAll kinds of technology that’s less half-baked than Uber’s self-driving cars has redundant, decoupled safety systems. Might be better for Uber’s data collection to turn this off, but you really can’t argue it was safer. I don’t think we should be killing people because that works better for their business needs.
- c22 9y agoMobileye isn't a "self-driving" system, it's a collision prevention/mitigation system, like airbags or ABS. Leaving it on while a human controls the car hasn't been seen as a disaster.
- bladers 9y agofirst of all Mobileye does have a self driving system (their EyeQ4 chips is for Level 3-4 self driving). However Amon was referring to their EyeQ3 chip from 2014 which is installed in 24 million cars and have billions of miles
- dogma1138 9y agoTesla’s autopilot runs on MobilEye only AP 2 runs on NVIDIA.
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoThis is a system designed to respond when a human driver has failed to identify the threat, so we've already established that having two systems (one dumb system and one intelligent system) doesn't compromise safety.
- mrguyorama 9y agoWhich one, human or automated, is the "dumb" system?
- jyrkesh 9y agoAbsolutely not. Having two sets of sensors on the car is a good thing because it provides redundancy. If one set of sensors fails to detect say, a person in the middle of the road, the other one will step in and say "hey, brain, there's a person in the middle of the road". If Uber intentionally disabled the second set of sensors, they were acting recklessly, and they're a danger to the development of the self-driving car industry. This one incident may have set us back years.
- vkou 9y ago> Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. When I drive a car, I am a 'self-driving system'. It is intended that I am used in conjunction with the car's existing driving-assist functionality.
- darkmarmot 9y agoAircraft use multiple flight systems developed by separate teams in separate languages/technologies -- and then compare their answers to get redundant consensus.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoGiven that, maybe they're trying to head off some potential bad press if a journalist gets some facts incorrect.
- stingraycharles 9y agoYeah this looks more like a defensive move than an opportunitistic marketing opportunity as OP framed it to be.
- reificator 9y ago¿Porque no los dos? When you say this is why we've been calling for everyone to take it slow that's a defensive move. When you say your setup would have detected her a second before the impact, that's an opportunistic marketing opportunity.
- Karunamon 9y agoIncidents like these could very well kill the technology just as its leaving the crib, if mishandled. It's all defensive. In this case, the interests of the companies and the interests of the users are aligned.
- AboutTheWhisles 9y agoNot only that, but all the data could be recorded and replayed through other software, so they could conceivably say what it would have seen and done.