4 ms·
It will be interesting to see if self driving cars and the way they've been rushed to market with the same brute force marketing will meet a similar fate.
by cube00 5y ago
It will be interesting to see if self driving cars and the way they've been rushed to market with the same brute force marketing will meet a similar fate.
- cnlwsu 5y agoSelf driving cars are not made by IBM. I wouldn’t consider their utter failure at everything they touch to be a sign that that AI field failed.
- echopurity 5y ago
- jjcon 5y agoAgreed, AI is just like any software. There are good, bad, scammy and brilliant examples of it. With AI somehow though people like to use one bad example as a referendum on everything. I think I understand why (because AI as a term is overloaded by marketing teams), but the inclination is to paint with a broad brush is still inaccurate here.
- laurent92 5y agoYes. The IBM Rationale suite failed even though it wasn’t AI. It’s the IBM way they commercialize things by going to golf with execs which is the problem.
- xnx 5y agoGoogle started its self driving project 13 years ago. It doesn't seem like they're rushing anything.
- mnd999 5y agoSelf driving cars are just that, marketing. Tesla for all their hype have limited driver assist only and even Google who seem to have the most advanced offering only works in limited areas in good conditions and the dataset that drives it requires lots of maintenance. The general problem is too hard, and general practice has some of the same problems. Probably less adversarial data, but there’s still litigation to be had from confusing an AI GP. Or narcotics.
- HiJon89 5y agoLimited driver assist? Are all the videos of people using Tesla full self-driving on YouTube fake?
- sixQuarks 5y agoYeah I’m shaking my head as well.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- isx726552 5y agoWhat videos would those be, like this one? https://youtu.be/uClWlVCwHsI https://youtu.be/uClWlVCwHsI Tesla’s safety claims are wildly overstated, as documented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26855608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26855608 In aggregate, Tesla’s FSD is demonstrably not up to the task. “Limited driver assist” is a much more fair assessment of what their software is actually capable of than the “full self driving” branding.
- saltminer 5y agoIt's unpredictable enough that it should be considered just "limited driver assist". Only a fool would look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ub2F-UnXIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ub2F-UnXIU and go "yeah, that's full self-driving, all right." Slapping a "beta" label on it means nothing - you could be talking about how Gmail was in beta, or you could be talking about Fallout 76. Tesla's marketing is extremely disingenuous, IMO. The name of your product creates expectations in peoples' minds, and sure, you can absolve yourself of liability by putting in the fine print "this isn't anywhere close to true FSD and your car might not be powerful enough to support it by the time we get there, so you gotta keep your hands on the wheel," but that doesn't make it right. If they called it "advanced driver assist" or something similar, I'd be fine with it (it is more advanced than traditional driver assistance tools like cruise control and lane departure warnings, after all). But I doubt they could get people to pay $10k or whatever the current price is if they were more honest. Instead, they would prefer to earn more money by slapping that FSD label on it and letting people immediately turn their brains off.
- 8note 5y agoI expect roads to adapt to make self driving car's easier to run over time. Both in terms of handling people, other cars, signage, and obstructions.