4 ms·

We are almost certainly not on track for autonomous vehicles. The simple test for autonomous vehicles is “can they drive in Indian traffic.” We are very likel

We are almost certainly not on track for autonomous vehicles. The simple test for autonomous vehicles is “can they drive in Indian traffic.” We are very likely, on track for a correction in the form of “ we never meant level 5 autonomy.” We will see some form of assisted driving, and nothing beyond. It’s concerning that people aren’t thinking of attackers (or the govt) taking over your car first on HN. This is the happy start of AI, Just like the happy start of the web. Those were the days before the RIAA, before phishing, five eyes, and the unending loss of innocence that it has been since then.

ddingus 8y ago
>It’s concerning that people aren’t thinking of attackers (or the govt) taking over your car first on HN. Yup. I am quite concerned at how capable newer cars are, sans an equal level of security and safety consideration applied. There are going to be some ugly things happen, then we will see a correction. For now? No way I plan on owning anything networked, drive by wire. And so many things are coming long before we get great self-driving vehicles. In fact, I think they will be requirements to ease the transition to them, due to the reduced complexity when humans are not part of the equation. "We have geofenced your car, due to erratic, incompatible, [insert irritating justification here], driving patterns." "Your car has been speed limited for your safety..." Yeah. Gonna be fun.
- intended 8y ago
  And the argument FOR such controls writes itself! Do you know how many people die to drunk driving? Rash driving? Accidents in general? Imagine if we could stop all that? Those millions of lives all over the world, saved. Who could stand against such a moral argument and defend the right for people to act rashly while piloting tonnes of moving metal every day?
  - ddingus 8y ago
    If I thought for a minute those things would not be abused, count me in.

ddingus 8y ago

>It’s concerning that people aren’t thinking of attackers (or the govt) taking over your car first on HN. Yup. I am quite concerned at how capable newer cars are, sans an equal level of security and safety consideration applied. There are going to be some ugly things happen, then we will see a correction. For now? No way I plan on owning anything networked, drive by wire. And so many things are coming long before we get great self-driving vehicles. In fact, I think they will be requirements to ease the transition to them, due to the reduced complexity when humans are not part of the equation. "We have geofenced your car, due to erratic, incompatible, [insert irritating justification here], driving patterns." "Your car has been speed limited for your safety..." Yeah. Gonna be fun.

intended 8y ago
And the argument FOR such controls writes itself! Do you know how many people die to drunk driving? Rash driving? Accidents in general? Imagine if we could stop all that? Those millions of lives all over the world, saved. Who could stand against such a moral argument and defend the right for people to act rashly while piloting tonnes of moving metal every day?
- ddingus 8y ago
  If I thought for a minute those things would not be abused, count me in.