3 ms·

I do because I know self driving companies have talked about how remote operations work. It doesn’t involve taking control of the vehicle. Here’s a Waymo engin

by ra7 3y ago

I do because I know self driving companies have talked about how remote operations work. It doesn’t involve taking control of the vehicle. Here’s a Waymo engineer explaining how they can’t joystick a car: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/s/2ujFLZoLbo https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/s/2ujFLZoLbo And here is Zoox’s video about their teleoperations: https://youtu.be/NKQHuutVx78?si=4PDnG0gQm6lEnp9v https://youtu.be/NKQHuutVx78?si=4PDnG0gQm6lEnp9v No reason to believe Cruise is doing any different. If you have evidence of the contrary, please share it.

haltist 3y ago
So you are 100% certain that remote operators can not take over the car?
- ra7 3y ago
  Based on what I know, yes. Why would they want to do it with the latencies involved? It’s not a reliable solution, so it’s not used in any safety critical path.
  - haltist 3y ago
    > In addition to allowing emergency crews to access and move vehicles, Cruise says that it is also providing its own remote "assistance advisors" the ability to conditionally route its Chevrolet Bolts. This means that if law enforcement directs Cruise to route its vehicles away from an emergency scene, those advisors will maneuver the cars in a way that satisfies the request. The AV provider also says that it has enhanced the ability of these remote operators to clear a scene, should an issue arise.[1] 1: https://www.thedrive.com/news/cruises-solution-to-robotaxis-blocking-emergency-vehicles-let-them-move-the-car https://www.thedrive.com/news/cruises-solution-to-robotaxis-...
    - ra7 3y ago
      Can you explain how this supports your assertions? Because this doesn’t say they can take over control of the vehicle or prevent an emergency in the first place. They clear the cars by plotting a new path.
      - haltist 3y ago
        You seemed very certain that I was completely incorrect. My point is that you should consider that you might not have all the details and if you haven't actually worked at an AV company then you do not know what capabilities are granted to remote operators in emergency and non-emergency situations.
        ra7 3y ago
        You are still incorrect and unable to prove anything you claimed. The burden of proof is on you when you confidently say they can "take over controls".
        haltist 3y ago
        I wasn't proving anything. The fact is there are articles explaining that remote operators can take over the controls in an emergency situation and that's exactly what you were denying. In any case, this discussion has run its course. You can continue to believe autonomous cars can not be remotely controlled and I'll believe what I wrote since I'm pretty sure it's correct. Every AV company has emergency procedures for remote takeover and it makes sense that they would because current ML tools and techniques are not good enough for self-driving cars and other kinds of autonomous applications.
        ra7 3y ago
        Hmm, no. No article explains remote operator can take over controls. There's an important distinction between taking over and instructing a car what to do. You don't seem to get that. > You can continue to believe autonomous cars can not be remotely controlled and I'll believe what I wrote since I'm pretty sure it's correct. Every AV company has emergency procedures for remote takeover If your proof is "I believe these companies are lying" and nothing else, then this is not a discussion worth having.

by ra7 3y ago

haltist 3y ago

So you are 100% certain that remote operators can not take over the car?

ra7 3y ago
Based on what I know, yes. Why would they want to do it with the latencies involved? It’s not a reliable solution, so it’s not used in any safety critical path.
- haltist 3y ago
  > In addition to allowing emergency crews to access and move vehicles, Cruise says that it is also providing its own remote "assistance advisors" the ability to conditionally route its Chevrolet Bolts. This means that if law enforcement directs Cruise to route its vehicles away from an emergency scene, those advisors will maneuver the cars in a way that satisfies the request. The AV provider also says that it has enhanced the ability of these remote operators to clear a scene, should an issue arise.[1] 1: https://www.thedrive.com/news/cruises-solution-to-robotaxis-blocking-emergency-vehicles-let-them-move-the-car https://www.thedrive.com/news/cruises-solution-to-robotaxis-...
  - ra7 3y ago
    Can you explain how this supports your assertions? Because this doesn’t say they can take over control of the vehicle or prevent an emergency in the first place. They clear the cars by plotting a new path.
    - haltist 3y ago
      You seemed very certain that I was completely incorrect. My point is that you should consider that you might not have all the details and if you haven't actually worked at an AV company then you do not know what capabilities are granted to remote operators in emergency and non-emergency situations.
      - ra7 3y ago
        You are still incorrect and unable to prove anything you claimed. The burden of proof is on you when you confidently say they can "take over controls".
        haltist 3y ago
        I wasn't proving anything. The fact is there are articles explaining that remote operators can take over the controls in an emergency situation and that's exactly what you were denying. In any case, this discussion has run its course. You can continue to believe autonomous cars can not be remotely controlled and I'll believe what I wrote since I'm pretty sure it's correct. Every AV company has emergency procedures for remote takeover and it makes sense that they would because current ML tools and techniques are not good enough for self-driving cars and other kinds of autonomous applications.
        ra7 3y ago
        Hmm, no. No article explains remote operator can take over controls. There's an important distinction between taking over and instructing a car what to do. You don't seem to get that. > You can continue to believe autonomous cars can not be remotely controlled and I'll believe what I wrote since I'm pretty sure it's correct. Every AV company has emergency procedures for remote takeover If your proof is "I believe these companies are lying" and nothing else, then this is not a discussion worth having.