4 ms·
That's interesting. A computer hits a pedestrian, then presumably the algorithms are updated and the probability of that scenario playing out again drops to 0.
by josho 12y ago
That's interesting. A computer hits a pedestrian, then presumably the algorithms are updated and the probability of that scenario playing out again drops to 0. While A human hits a pedestrian, and that scenario is likely to never occur for that driver again, but for all other drivers the probability remains the same.
- krapp 12y agoAlthough you technically may be right (depending on how easy 'updating the algorithm' turns out to be - it being as easy as updating an app seems a bit on the crazy side to me) I don't know that the likelihood for all human drivers of hitting a pedestrian is necessarily high, though. It exists, obviously, but I think human drivers already come with the "don't hit pedestrians" firmware installed, and it mostly seems to work. To me it won't be demonstrable that driverless cars are vastly superior until there are a decent number of them on the streets, mixing it up with traffic in all kinds of weather, dealing with unexpected hazards and inaccurate maps, for an extended period of time.
- icebraining 12y agodepending on how easy 'updating the algorithm' turns out to be - it being as easy as updating an app seems a bit on the crazy side to me Tesla is already updating the firmware of their cars over-the-air[1]. It seems likely that driverless cars will have the same feature. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/24/3385506/tesla-model-s-over-the-air-car-firmware-update http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/24/3385506/tesla-model-s-over...
- krapp 12y agoFair enough - just crazy enough to work, maybe. (but still crazy.)