3 ms·
Nobody has self-driving cars, not even Waymo. Every "self-driving car" has "disengagements" (a euphemism for "it stopped working") periodically every few thousa
by InclinedPlane 8y ago
Nobody has self-driving cars, not even Waymo. Every "self-driving car" has "disengagements" (a euphemism for "it stopped working") periodically every few thousand miles. That's simply unacceptable and needs to be sorted out. If a human driver was performing a panic stop for no reason or hitting a pedestrian or another car every 3 months or so we would take away their license.
Waymo is doing better than almost everyone else, a testament to their skill and their rigor, but they are still a long distance away from truly autonomous vehicles. The temptation is to say "well, they are so close, I'm sure they'll finish up the niggling details", but the reality is that the stuff they are failing at are some of the hardest remaining problems and will probably require at least as much work as they've put in already, if not significantly more, to tackle. I think we'll end up with self-driving cars eventually but probably not on a time scale of within the next 5-10 years, more likely it'll take that long or longer for the technology to reach maturity and then yet another decade plus for it to start seeing practical application.
- xbkingx 8y agoIt's the classic problem of truly appreciating magnitude and scale. Humans are amazing at it within a very narrow realm, and then terrible beyond that narrow range. This is the sad realization I had about brain-computer interfaces towards the end of my research. 99.9% is NOT good enough when the stakes are life and death and the factors within events that the environment throws at you are basically independent and continuous. At least with self driving cars we can enforce some hard boundaries. In BCIs implementing boundaries is tantamount to denying the user of their free will.
- tim333 8y agoThe cars that have been driving around Phoenix certainly seem self driving. Humans also drive imperfectly and that doesn't mean they don't exist. see >A select group of Arizonans has been shuttling around the Phoenix area in self-driving cars for the past year, providing insight into the future of the technology. http://ktar.com/story/2105890/waymo-early-rider-program-provides-insight-into-self-driving-car-technology/ http://ktar.com/story/2105890/waymo-early-rider-program-prov...
- rohit2412 8y agoI repeat this again and again, and am always surprised that nobody else likes to raise the unfair comparisons. I am willing to assume that waymo/Tesla etc have found the holy Grail, and made a driverless car safer than the average current human driver on the road. I'm not convinced that we should still allow these driverless cars on the road with no human backups. Not because of expectations or liability, but because the benchmark is wrong. We should compare them to a human assisted by the same driverless technology being used passively to prevent accidents. And it's not clear if a driverless car with no human backup is safer than a human assisted by the same technology.
- mchahn 8y agoInteresting. Maybe instead of humans intervening in the AI, the AI should intervene in the human's driving.
- chrisco255 8y agoThat sort of already happens with lane assist, auto parallel parking, brake warnings, adaptive cruise control, etc.
- Piskvorrr 8y agoThis. Flipping the semantics around because Marketing thinks it will attract more customers is disingenuous at best, murderous at worst.