3 ms·

Is it fair to say they are "beta testing" on public roads with the public paying the price after they've done four years with a supervised driver in the cab?

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
I think it is a fair question to ask. I personally might be too influenced by what I see in gaming these days, where the game arrives in unfinished state. The difference there is, there are some clear ways of telling they are unfinished ( or finished ). How can we tell in this case? Do we wait for accident reports?
- yunwal 1y ago
  What would be a better indicator to you than 4 years of driving records?
  - kgwxd 1y ago
    110% transparency. We have no clue how they actually tested, how they cheated, what they're lying about, and all the other nefarious BS corporations constantly pull. A single person could turn all of these things into Decepticon in seconds. We need to know that that is intentionally made impossible, and no one will ever make it possible in secret. It could give someone the power of a global army.
    - simoncion 1y ago
      > A single person could turn all of these things into Decepticon in seconds. ... It could give someone the power of a global army. We're talking about an ordinary semi truck with attached trailer and a bevy of sensors. This isn't a war machine. The worst thing that can happen here is the same thing that can happen with an inattentive or exhausted driver.
      - lnsru 1y ago
        It’s indeed a war machine. Even going at slowish 60 mph. Trucks go through all barriers and 20 passenger cars over before stopping. The pictures of accidents with asleep truck drivers are shocking.
        simoncion 1y ago
        Dangerous != War Machine As you mention, the (infrequent, but not nonexistent) accidents caused by overworked commercial semi truck drivers are one of the reasons why I do hope this works at least as well as human long-haul drivers.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        << This isn't a war machine. I suppose various LEOs are worried over nothing then. I will say this though. Car, like so many other things, is just a tool and like with most, if not all, tools, the question of whether it is a war machine is a rather pragmatic one. Can it be used for war purpose?
        simoncion 1y ago
        > Can it be used for war purpose? Ah, yes. That historically-well-known war machine known as sunlight and fresh air.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    << What would be a better indicator to you than 4 years of driving records? "In four years of practice hauls the trucks’ technology has delivered over 10,000 customer loads. As of Thursday, the company’s self-driving tech has completed over 1,200 miles without a human in the truck." It would be a start, but we don't seem to have that. Or, at least, the article does not have them. What we do have is a press release and an indication that the load was delivered. No indication of the issues that arose. Just the simple fact that no issues are mentioned suggests there is a massive amount of information that is being omitted, because, I am sure you will agree, it is close to impossible for any kind of rig to run for 4 years and not have issues. edit: Tangent. I am starting to feel real fatigue from seeing those gaping holes and just about all articles I read each day. Even FT had some weird omissions in something I saw the other day. And that is just one problem. It gets even worse, when you read something you have some expertise in and the author gets it very, very wrong.
    - simoncion 1y ago
      > What we do have is a press release and an indication that the load was delivered. I like how you didn't seem to notice that there are 1,460 days in four years. I get the impression that ten semi-truck hauls a day is a lot. If you hit someone (or wreck the truck) you're not going to make your next haul... you're going to be talking to the cops and/or having a wrecker drag you back home.
      - achierius 1y ago
        But only 1,200 miles without a human accompanying the truck. I assume those 10,000 loads weren't all in that same category -- unless it was going a few hundred feet back and forth each time!
        simoncion 1y ago
        > But only 1,200 miles without a human accompanying the truck. Sure? You'd only remove the man in the cabin if you'd already run many, many, many miles with the man in the cabin not having to take control. It's true that the company could be being irresponsible (perhaps even dangerously so). [0] We'll just have to see how the vehicle performs over the next year or five. Do make sure to compare any reports of failure to the expected rate of failure of human operators. [0] Given that they're running fully-autonomous commercial payloads, I find this unlikely.
callc 1y ago
Definitely. Since human lives are at stake, it is fair to have an extremely high bar for safety.
- vlan0 1y ago
  It's an interesting bar to set. And it shows how we're willing to bend that safety bar to allow seniors to drive on the roads despite their clear cognitive disadvantage. Let's look at some raw data. Mind you, we have 100x more data for the human drivers below. ie, billions of miles vs millions for automated drivers. Pop examined Fatal-crash rate All Level‑4 automated‑driving tests in the U.S. 1.5–1.7 per 100 M mi Drivers 70‑74 yr 1.7 per 100 M mi Drivers 75‑79 yr 2.1 per 100 M mi Drivers 80‑84 yr 4.3 per 100 M mi Drivers ≥ 85 yr 7.6 per 100 M mi So statistically, you are much more likely to be killed by a senior citizen. So to make a consistent argument using data around safety, we should maybe be revoking the licenses of older folks? edit: Jesus, 19% of all US fatal crashes in 2023 invloved seniors. While they make up 15% of the driver population.
  - analog31 1y ago
    Likewise younger drivers, as indicated by insurance rates.
    - vlan0 1y ago
      You're not wrong. Data shows driver under 20 are involved in 4.8 fatal crashes per 100m miles. Speed, alcohol, lower seat-belt use, and of course, inexperience are listed as the primary contributing factors.
  - mikrotikker 1y ago
    I'd rather be driven by any human driver than a machine that has no empathy, can't be reasoned with, can't be bargained with, and is under control of a faceless corporation.
  - 1y ago
defrost 1y ago
Sure .. if by "beta testing" you acknowledge a decade of driverless 100 tonne+ trucks operating in large fleets on private mining sites mixed in with "regular" driver vehicles. This might be the first foray onto a subset of open public roads but it's not the first serious use of semi autonomous trucks mixed in with human traffic.
- timewizard 1y ago
  I think most mining sites I've been on there isn't mixed large truck and passenger vehicle traffic on any road way. Those trucks simply cannot see you and so it's strictly forbidden, driverless or not. They usually map out the site and show you which roads you can take in your vehicle and they are completely separate from the operations roads. There are only intersections and it's always the responsibility of passenger cars to come to a complete stop and wait for any cross traffic to pass before proceeding. I remember this well because we had a job servicing specific equipment on a particular mining companies sites in northern Minnesota. One time we drove on the wrong road. A security vehicle saw us and drove up on us at an extremely high rate of speed to clear us off the truck road and onto the proper passenger road. He spent a good few minutes yelling at us once we were clear. People have been killed this way.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
We have two examples to look at: Waymo, which appears to be doing an excellent job of handling it. Their robotaxis consistently seem to have a better track record than humans (although it's possible the limits put on them taint the comparison.) Cruise, which had a whole bunch of problems with edge cases and last I knew wasn't allowed to operate anymore. I'd share the road with a Waymo truck (not that their system can do that yet), I wouldn't want to share it with a Cruise truck.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  Once the technology has been proven it should be possible for fast followers to catch up. We can't let the market be captured by whoever passes the bar first.
  - lnsru 1y ago
    But that’s the winner takes it all situation thanks to software patents in US. The first one patents everything and the rest can catch up later or think about really different approach.
  - LorenPechtel 1y ago
    I'm not saying that competition should be prohibited, but that we seem to have a problem with the requirements for being allowed to operate on the road.
timewizard 1y ago
During that time did a tire ever blow out? Did one of the brakes ever fail? Did the fifth wheel ever fail? Did the steering gear ever break? These are things that happen. How does the AI handle them? Do we know?
- antennafirepla 1y ago
  Agreed, I think these systems may perform well in the short term with brand new and maintained equipment but will start to fail with age and once the fleet is large enough they push maintenance schedules.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago

I think it is a fair question to ask. I personally might be too influenced by what I see in gaming these days, where the game arrives in unfinished state. The difference there is, there are some clear ways of telling they are unfinished ( or finished ). How can we tell in this case? Do we wait for accident reports?

yunwal 1y ago
What would be a better indicator to you than 4 years of driving records?
- kgwxd 1y ago
  110% transparency. We have no clue how they actually tested, how they cheated, what they're lying about, and all the other nefarious BS corporations constantly pull. A single person could turn all of these things into Decepticon in seconds. We need to know that that is intentionally made impossible, and no one will ever make it possible in secret. It could give someone the power of a global army.
  - simoncion 1y ago
    > A single person could turn all of these things into Decepticon in seconds. ... It could give someone the power of a global army. We're talking about an ordinary semi truck with attached trailer and a bevy of sensors. This isn't a war machine. The worst thing that can happen here is the same thing that can happen with an inattentive or exhausted driver.
    - lnsru 1y ago
      It’s indeed a war machine. Even going at slowish 60 mph. Trucks go through all barriers and 20 passenger cars over before stopping. The pictures of accidents with asleep truck drivers are shocking.
      - simoncion 1y ago
        Dangerous != War Machine As you mention, the (infrequent, but not nonexistent) accidents caused by overworked commercial semi truck drivers are one of the reasons why I do hope this works at least as well as human long-haul drivers.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
      << This isn't a war machine. I suppose various LEOs are worried over nothing then. I will say this though. Car, like so many other things, is just a tool and like with most, if not all, tools, the question of whether it is a war machine is a rather pragmatic one. Can it be used for war purpose?
      - simoncion 1y ago
        > Can it be used for war purpose? Ah, yes. That historically-well-known war machine known as sunlight and fresh air.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  << What would be a better indicator to you than 4 years of driving records? "In four years of practice hauls the trucks’ technology has delivered over 10,000 customer loads. As of Thursday, the company’s self-driving tech has completed over 1,200 miles without a human in the truck." It would be a start, but we don't seem to have that. Or, at least, the article does not have them. What we do have is a press release and an indication that the load was delivered. No indication of the issues that arose. Just the simple fact that no issues are mentioned suggests there is a massive amount of information that is being omitted, because, I am sure you will agree, it is close to impossible for any kind of rig to run for 4 years and not have issues. edit: Tangent. I am starting to feel real fatigue from seeing those gaping holes and just about all articles I read each day. Even FT had some weird omissions in something I saw the other day. And that is just one problem. It gets even worse, when you read something you have some expertise in and the author gets it very, very wrong.
  - simoncion 1y ago
    > What we do have is a press release and an indication that the load was delivered. I like how you didn't seem to notice that there are 1,460 days in four years. I get the impression that ten semi-truck hauls a day is a lot. If you hit someone (or wreck the truck) you're not going to make your next haul... you're going to be talking to the cops and/or having a wrecker drag you back home.
    - achierius 1y ago
      But only 1,200 miles without a human accompanying the truck. I assume those 10,000 loads weren't all in that same category -- unless it was going a few hundred feet back and forth each time!
      - simoncion 1y ago
        > But only 1,200 miles without a human accompanying the truck. Sure? You'd only remove the man in the cabin if you'd already run many, many, many miles with the man in the cabin not having to take control. It's true that the company could be being irresponsible (perhaps even dangerously so). [0] We'll just have to see how the vehicle performs over the next year or five. Do make sure to compare any reports of failure to the expected rate of failure of human operators. [0] Given that they're running fully-autonomous commercial payloads, I find this unlikely.

callc 1y ago

Definitely. Since human lives are at stake, it is fair to have an extremely high bar for safety.

vlan0 1y ago
It's an interesting bar to set. And it shows how we're willing to bend that safety bar to allow seniors to drive on the roads despite their clear cognitive disadvantage. Let's look at some raw data. Mind you, we have 100x more data for the human drivers below. ie, billions of miles vs millions for automated drivers. Pop examined Fatal-crash rate All Level‑4 automated‑driving tests in the U.S. 1.5–1.7 per 100 M mi Drivers 70‑74 yr 1.7 per 100 M mi Drivers 75‑79 yr 2.1 per 100 M mi Drivers 80‑84 yr 4.3 per 100 M mi Drivers ≥ 85 yr 7.6 per 100 M mi So statistically, you are much more likely to be killed by a senior citizen. So to make a consistent argument using data around safety, we should maybe be revoking the licenses of older folks? edit: Jesus, 19% of all US fatal crashes in 2023 invloved seniors. While they make up 15% of the driver population.
- analog31 1y ago
  Likewise younger drivers, as indicated by insurance rates.
  - vlan0 1y ago
    You're not wrong. Data shows driver under 20 are involved in 4.8 fatal crashes per 100m miles. Speed, alcohol, lower seat-belt use, and of course, inexperience are listed as the primary contributing factors.
- mikrotikker 1y ago
  I'd rather be driven by any human driver than a machine that has no empathy, can't be reasoned with, can't be bargained with, and is under control of a faceless corporation.
- 1y ago

defrost 1y ago

Sure .. if by "beta testing" you acknowledge a decade of driverless 100 tonne+ trucks operating in large fleets on private mining sites mixed in with "regular" driver vehicles. This might be the first foray onto a subset of open public roads but it's not the first serious use of semi autonomous trucks mixed in with human traffic.

timewizard 1y ago
I think most mining sites I've been on there isn't mixed large truck and passenger vehicle traffic on any road way. Those trucks simply cannot see you and so it's strictly forbidden, driverless or not. They usually map out the site and show you which roads you can take in your vehicle and they are completely separate from the operations roads. There are only intersections and it's always the responsibility of passenger cars to come to a complete stop and wait for any cross traffic to pass before proceeding. I remember this well because we had a job servicing specific equipment on a particular mining companies sites in northern Minnesota. One time we drove on the wrong road. A security vehicle saw us and drove up on us at an extremely high rate of speed to clear us off the truck road and onto the proper passenger road. He spent a good few minutes yelling at us once we were clear. People have been killed this way.

LorenPechtel 1y ago

We have two examples to look at: Waymo, which appears to be doing an excellent job of handling it. Their robotaxis consistently seem to have a better track record than humans (although it's possible the limits put on them taint the comparison.) Cruise, which had a whole bunch of problems with edge cases and last I knew wasn't allowed to operate anymore. I'd share the road with a Waymo truck (not that their system can do that yet), I wouldn't want to share it with a Cruise truck.

throwaway48476 1y ago
Once the technology has been proven it should be possible for fast followers to catch up. We can't let the market be captured by whoever passes the bar first.
- lnsru 1y ago
  But that’s the winner takes it all situation thanks to software patents in US. The first one patents everything and the rest can catch up later or think about really different approach.
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  I'm not saying that competition should be prohibited, but that we seem to have a problem with the requirements for being allowed to operate on the road.

timewizard 1y ago

During that time did a tire ever blow out? Did one of the brakes ever fail? Did the fifth wheel ever fail? Did the steering gear ever break? These are things that happen. How does the AI handle them? Do we know?

antennafirepla 1y ago
Agreed, I think these systems may perform well in the short term with brand new and maintained equipment but will start to fail with age and once the fleet is large enough they push maintenance schedules.