5 ms·

As a pedestrian I'm not a fan of being an unwitting part of a private company's beta testing. Before this devolves into whatboutism vs the safety of human drive

As a pedestrian I'm not a fan of being an unwitting part of a private company's beta testing. Before this devolves into whatboutism vs the safety of human drivers, my opposition is to adding yet another unknown safety layer to walking down the street. Usually when private companies are developing products that could kill, drugs for example, it is on the company to exhaustively prove the safety and effectiveness before launching it to the public. It seems odd that self driving cars have been skipping this step.

alphabetting 3y ago
The whole point of AVs is that they are a safety layer.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  They are theoretically a safety layer when we have proven they work. If they do not work well, then they aren't actually safer.
  - alphabetting 3y ago
    I haven't seen anything that indicates they don't work well. My anecdotal experience is feeling much safer inside and around them in comparison to vehicles with humans behind the wheel.
    - rurp 3y ago
      There are plenty of anecdotes of AVs behaving terribly, but anecdotes are beside the point. Normally when a company wants to introduce a dangerous new product on the market the burden of proof is on them to prove that it's safe enough. For various reasons tech companies have gotten to do this in reverse by testing on the public to find out how safe they are.
    - iakov 3y ago
      What does the article indicate then? Everything working as intended? I am wondering if the pedestrian that was dragged six meters by a autonomous machine felt much safer. The AVs do not work well in the edge cases - exactly in those situations where humans can apply common sense and behave accordingly. Exactly the cases that sceptics seemed to be worried about, and it turns out that the sceptics were right. I hope AVs will not be allowed on public roads where I live in the next decades.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  No, the whole point of AVs, like any other product of a for-profit business, is that they make the manufacturers money. A part of the sales pitch for AVs is that autonomy acts as a safety layer. As with any sales pitch, the interest of the manufacturer is often more in getting people to believe the pitch than in it being true, validating that it is true is a concern of outside parties. Insofar as AV adoption requires loosening existing rules to allow them, that includes regulatory authorities.
  - alphabetting 3y ago
    Profitability will be needed for companies to succeed but it's not the point. Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Profitability will be needed for companies to succeed but it's not the point. Yes, it is. > Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road? Yes, along with a pile of other moonshots. That's what moonshots are for. There's a lot of profit potential in AVs, and even if you fail at it there is a lot of potential for profitable spinoffs of the research. And if you fail at both, well, moonshots are high-risk, high-reward.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > incinerating billions on it over the years To add to your comment, the billions "incinerated" in Waymo (~$5bn) is about what New York City pays for a single subway station qua shopping mall.
    - AirMax98 3y ago
      > Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road? Honest question: why do you think Google funded this?
- rurp 3y ago
  A safety layer that kills people in novel ways... GPs whole point is that companies should have to prove that they are safe, not just assert that they probably will be and then test on public non-volunteers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TulliusCicero 3y ago
In principle, I agree. It's just that, in practice, it's almost certainly impossible to reach safe self-driving cars without a period of 'public beta testing', you'll just never get enough data and experience. Not entirely unlike how there's a period for new drivers where they really aren't safe, but there's no way for them to become safe without going out onto the regular roads and gaining more experience.
dilippkumar 3y ago
> It seems odd that self driving cars have been skipping this step. [Citation needed]
- kradroy 3y ago
  I have doubts about this too. I remember seeing a Humvee autonomously driving around the CMU campus back in 1998. I get the feeling research institutions and, now, product companies have been working closely with local city governments about safely releasing these into the wild for some time.
- gwbas1c 3y ago
  No, it's not. "It seems odd that self driving cars have been skipping this step." is an opinion referencing well-known current events. You can't expect everyone commenting on this article to re-reference the saga of Cruise in San Francisco; especially when it's frequently covered on the front page of Hacker News. Furthermore, you should know that a Hacker News discussion is not Wikipedia. These discussions are not the kind of things where every off-the-cuff statement needs to be backed up with references.
foota 3y ago
How do you propose they do so?
- ProfessorLayton 3y ago
  That's a question for regulators. What AV companies are doing is akin to human trials in pedestrian safety without consent. This wouldn't fly in another industry like pharmaceuticals.
  - ehsankia 3y ago
    Not really. Oharmaceuticals have many different tiers of trials, but even with that, there are still new discoveries and surprises once they reach the full population. Waymo has been testing their tech for over a decade in much smaller and controlled situations. Similarly, all of these companies also have done tests with humans behind the wheel for years. To claim that they've done no testing and are going straight to public testing is just plainly false. You can argue about how much non-public testing is enough, but any roadmap for AV will eventually at some point have to include public testing.
    - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
      Perhaps you know more than me about pharmaceutical testing, but people are aware that they're part of a trial, and more importantly, they consent to participating, correct? I did not claim they're not testing, they clearly are. My argument is that people that didn't sign up to be test subjects are getting hurt in the process. It's worth pointing out the discrepancy in human safety trials, is it not? Why should AV testing be less rigorous than pharmaceuticals?
      - foota 3y ago
        The state ultimately is the one that is giving permission here on behalf of people, much the same way as the FDA decides when a medication is safe enough to be administered, or the FAA when a plane is ready, etc.,
      - 3y ago
andbberger 3y ago
tesla next
- duped 3y ago
  Tesla just lies about what constitutes self-driving, totally different

alphabetting 3y ago

The whole point of AVs is that they are a safety layer.

bobthepanda 3y ago
They are theoretically a safety layer when we have proven they work. If they do not work well, then they aren't actually safer.
- alphabetting 3y ago
  I haven't seen anything that indicates they don't work well. My anecdotal experience is feeling much safer inside and around them in comparison to vehicles with humans behind the wheel.
  - rurp 3y ago
    There are plenty of anecdotes of AVs behaving terribly, but anecdotes are beside the point. Normally when a company wants to introduce a dangerous new product on the market the burden of proof is on them to prove that it's safe enough. For various reasons tech companies have gotten to do this in reverse by testing on the public to find out how safe they are.
  - iakov 3y ago
    What does the article indicate then? Everything working as intended? I am wondering if the pedestrian that was dragged six meters by a autonomous machine felt much safer. The AVs do not work well in the edge cases - exactly in those situations where humans can apply common sense and behave accordingly. Exactly the cases that sceptics seemed to be worried about, and it turns out that the sceptics were right. I hope AVs will not be allowed on public roads where I live in the next decades.
dragonwriter 3y ago
No, the whole point of AVs, like any other product of a for-profit business, is that they make the manufacturers money. A part of the sales pitch for AVs is that autonomy acts as a safety layer. As with any sales pitch, the interest of the manufacturer is often more in getting people to believe the pitch than in it being true, validating that it is true is a concern of outside parties. Insofar as AV adoption requires loosening existing rules to allow them, that includes regulatory authorities.
- alphabetting 3y ago
  Profitability will be needed for companies to succeed but it's not the point. Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Profitability will be needed for companies to succeed but it's not the point. Yes, it is. > Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road? Yes, along with a pile of other moonshots. That's what moonshots are for. There's a lot of profit potential in AVs, and even if you fail at it there is a lot of potential for profitable spinoffs of the research. And if you fail at both, well, moonshots are high-risk, high-reward.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > incinerating billions on it over the years To add to your comment, the billions "incinerated" in Waymo (~$5bn) is about what New York City pays for a single subway station qua shopping mall.
  - AirMax98 3y ago
    > Do you think Google's main motivation behind starting AV work 14 years ago and incinerating billions on it over the years was really rooted in speculative profit years down the road? Honest question: why do you think Google funded this?
rurp 3y ago
A safety layer that kills people in novel ways... GPs whole point is that companies should have to prove that they are safe, not just assert that they probably will be and then test on public non-volunteers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

TulliusCicero 3y ago

In principle, I agree. It's just that, in practice, it's almost certainly impossible to reach safe self-driving cars without a period of 'public beta testing', you'll just never get enough data and experience. Not entirely unlike how there's a period for new drivers where they really aren't safe, but there's no way for them to become safe without going out onto the regular roads and gaining more experience.

dilippkumar 3y ago

> It seems odd that self driving cars have been skipping this step. [Citation needed]

kradroy 3y ago
I have doubts about this too. I remember seeing a Humvee autonomously driving around the CMU campus back in 1998. I get the feeling research institutions and, now, product companies have been working closely with local city governments about safely releasing these into the wild for some time.
gwbas1c 3y ago
No, it's not. "It seems odd that self driving cars have been skipping this step." is an opinion referencing well-known current events. You can't expect everyone commenting on this article to re-reference the saga of Cruise in San Francisco; especially when it's frequently covered on the front page of Hacker News. Furthermore, you should know that a Hacker News discussion is not Wikipedia. These discussions are not the kind of things where every off-the-cuff statement needs to be backed up with references.

foota 3y ago

How do you propose they do so?

ProfessorLayton 3y ago
That's a question for regulators. What AV companies are doing is akin to human trials in pedestrian safety without consent. This wouldn't fly in another industry like pharmaceuticals.
- ehsankia 3y ago
  Not really. Oharmaceuticals have many different tiers of trials, but even with that, there are still new discoveries and surprises once they reach the full population. Waymo has been testing their tech for over a decade in much smaller and controlled situations. Similarly, all of these companies also have done tests with humans behind the wheel for years. To claim that they've done no testing and are going straight to public testing is just plainly false. You can argue about how much non-public testing is enough, but any roadmap for AV will eventually at some point have to include public testing.
  - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
    Perhaps you know more than me about pharmaceutical testing, but people are aware that they're part of a trial, and more importantly, they consent to participating, correct? I did not claim they're not testing, they clearly are. My argument is that people that didn't sign up to be test subjects are getting hurt in the process. It's worth pointing out the discrepancy in human safety trials, is it not? Why should AV testing be less rigorous than pharmaceuticals?
    - foota 3y ago
      The state ultimately is the one that is giving permission here on behalf of people, much the same way as the FDA decides when a medication is safe enough to be administered, or the FAA when a plane is ready, etc.,
    - 3y ago

andbberger 3y ago

tesla next

duped 3y ago
Tesla just lies about what constitutes self-driving, totally different