3 ms·
And imagine when some internet forum decides to put a phallic object on top of some significant building, and all go vote it as legitimate. I'm not claiming it
by big_chungus 7y ago
And imagine when some internet forum decides to put a phallic object on top of some significant building, and all go vote it as legitimate. I'm not claiming it's impossible, but there will certainly be obstacles (see wikipedia). This has to be one data-set we get right; with self-driving cars coming, it could cause injury or death if we don't.
- melling 7y agoLike you said: See Wikipedia.
- big_chungus 7y agoRight, but Wikipedia still has lots of issues with vandalism. They do a good job, but it's just not accurate to keep something perfect at that scale. Here's the difference: wikipedia gets vandalized and people laugh. Mapping data gets vandalized and people could die.
- melling 7y agoThe world is a dynamic place. People and AI need to be able to reconcile when what they see doesn’t match a map.
- inscionent 7y agoHumans are vandals. Humans are murders. Humans are creators. Humans build things larger than themselves. Nothing is perfect. Choose what to focus on.
- tjoff 7y agoNot really, self-driving cars must never rely on maps to prevent injury.
- coldtea 7y ago>This has to be one data-set we get right; with self-driving cars coming, it could cause injury or death if we don't. Self driving cars can't (and don't) rely on maps to prevent injury or death. They only use to know how to go from A to B in the most general way -- and they'd still need to check for bypasses, closed roads, etc... (on top of the real-time, processing of obstacles, vehicles, lanes, traffic lights, weather, and so on).