4 ms·

What would be a better indicator to you than 4 years of driving records?

by yunwal 1y ago

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.

What would be a better indicator to you than 4 years of driving records?

by yunwal 1y ago

What would be a better indicator to you than 4 years of driving records?

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.