4 ms·

Not crash?

icebraining 8y ago
It was in manual mode. Should it forcibly take away control from the user that gave it a direct command, because it "thinks" they're not paying attention?
- MBCook 8y ago
  The whole POINT of manual mode is (quite possibly) the car’s interpretation of the situation is wrong and CAN’T be safely followed. If you add safety measures to manual (possible outcome of GP’s comment) then you’re back at not having a manual safety override.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    That's my point :)
  - ThinkSomething 8y ago
    Self driving cars are supposedly utilizing AI. If the AI is this fragile, then it is no where near being ready for public consumption.
    - MBCook 8y ago
      Which is why they’re not selling it to the public yet. They’re testing. And they NEED a working manual mode for that.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        They do. But letting their manual operators fall asleep and trigger it is not good at all.
        sangnoir 8y ago
        Letting a developer drop the production database[1] is not good either, but trusting a person to do their job correctly is baked into every organization and level. Still, accidents happen - there is no fool-proof way to stop humans from behaviours that are ultimately harmful. Elaborate systems will have elaborate loopholes. 1. https://about.gitlab.com/2017/02/01/gitlab-dot-com-database-incident/ https://about.gitlab.com/2017/02/01/gitlab-dot-com-database-...
        village-idiot 8y ago
        For certain you cannot prevent all accidents, and I am not trying to say that we can/should. I think having a sole operator in a prototype vehicle drastically increases the odds of these accidents, and that companies like Waymo should run them with two operators and some drowsiness detection systems (which are common on luxury cars). That’s a relatively simple fix. It’s important that testing with multi ton moving vehicles be handled with far more cars than most production databases are, speaking to your metaphor. The consequences of mistakes is much much higher with cars than it is with most databases.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  It never should have allowed the vehicle to proceed with a fatigued driver, and the company should have policies in place to prevent this (maxmimum hours, dual operators, etc.)

Not crash?

It was in manual mode. Should it forcibly take away control from the user that gave it a direct command, because it "thinks" they're not paying attention?

MBCook 8y ago
The whole POINT of manual mode is (quite possibly) the car’s interpretation of the situation is wrong and CAN’T be safely followed. If you add safety measures to manual (possible outcome of GP’s comment) then you’re back at not having a manual safety override.
- icebraining 8y ago
  That's my point :)
- ThinkSomething 8y ago
  Self driving cars are supposedly utilizing AI. If the AI is this fragile, then it is no where near being ready for public consumption.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    Which is why they’re not selling it to the public yet. They’re testing. And they NEED a working manual mode for that.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      They do. But letting their manual operators fall asleep and trigger it is not good at all.
      - sangnoir 8y ago
        Letting a developer drop the production database[1] is not good either, but trusting a person to do their job correctly is baked into every organization and level. Still, accidents happen - there is no fool-proof way to stop humans from behaviours that are ultimately harmful. Elaborate systems will have elaborate loopholes. 1. https://about.gitlab.com/2017/02/01/gitlab-dot-com-database-incident/ https://about.gitlab.com/2017/02/01/gitlab-dot-com-database-...
        village-idiot 8y ago
        For certain you cannot prevent all accidents, and I am not trying to say that we can/should. I think having a sole operator in a prototype vehicle drastically increases the odds of these accidents, and that companies like Waymo should run them with two operators and some drowsiness detection systems (which are common on luxury cars). That’s a relatively simple fix. It’s important that testing with multi ton moving vehicles be handled with far more cars than most production databases are, speaking to your metaphor. The consequences of mistakes is much much higher with cars than it is with most databases.
village-idiot 8y ago
It never should have allowed the vehicle to proceed with a fatigued driver, and the company should have policies in place to prevent this (maxmimum hours, dual operators, etc.)