mikejb (u/mikejb) - Readit News

mikejb commented on Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco getcruise.com/news/welcom... · Posted by u/d-jones

belter · 4 years ago

As it can't solve this in 2022 (video at correct time): https://youtu.be/wTybjJj0ptw?t=238

Or even worst, just managing an empty intersection (video at correct time): https://youtu.be/wTybjJj0ptw?t=280

At which point releasing software so bad, becomes a criminal liability? Another one at correct time: https://youtu.be/wTybjJj0ptw?t=652

There are simply no words...Correct time: https://youtu.be/wTybjJj0ptw?t=722

Should not be allowed out of the labs...

mikejb · 4 years ago

This is from from November 2021, but I'm still highlighting it because it is just terrifying (Correct time, though the video later on also exhibits inabilities of the system): https://youtu.be/9wRRClg_aM8?t=113

mikejb commented on Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco getcruise.com/news/welcom... · Posted by u/d-jones

afterburner · 4 years ago

Also you can't sell sexy Teslas if they have ugly lidars on top.

mikejb · 4 years ago

I think it's not just that. When Tesla started to with their FSD journey, they had to determine what sensors they can add to the car. Lidars back then were way more expensive than they are now, and it wouldn't have been feasible to add them at that time.

They can't add them now to new vehicles because they promised the vehicles back then are only a software update away from full autonomy [1]. Building on Lidar now would mean developing on 2 heavily differentiating stacks. Going back on the promise of old Tesla's being "FSD capable" would introduce a huge liability.

Long story short, Tesla's stance on Lidar determined 8 years ago, without the option to revise the decision with future developments.

[1] Note this has turned into "we'll only have to replace the computer in the car", which is still doable, contrary to adding sensors to the existing vehicle.

mikejb commented on Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda worldbeyondwar.org/the-pe... · Posted by u/giuliomagnifico

crate_barre · 4 years ago

The other country that is doing this at Hollywood scale is China, and it’s not just their ‘only popular in China’ movies like Wolf Warrior (1 and 2).

Some scenes:

https://youtu.be/g7y36UIRAjo

IP Man 4, which is more well known to western audiences:

https://youtu.be/OlW2VphUNd4

https://youtu.be/JFmaPK0JyVQ

You get the idea. Americans make movies where America good, everyone bad. China is now making movies where China good, everyone bad, specially white Americans.

Anyways, along with the glorification of US might and power by the pentagon, their recruiting tactics have also used video game stylization to attract young people:

https://youtu.be/N0f_ZUgqvxE

^ That is a fucking video game ad as far as I’m concerned. No mature person should be turned on by that.

mikejb · 4 years ago

Another country that comes to mind is India - but I've never been enough of a Bollywood fan to be able to make any assessment on this topic.

But it's a very effective tool to shape public opinion. I'm fairly certain without the overwhelmingly heroic portrait of (members of) the military, the public would be more inclined to question the huge investments that go into warfare. Particularly the display of highly achieved individuals in the military leads to both public respect of military members, and enlistings to service.

mikejb commented on Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency nytimes.com/2021/09/01/bu... · Posted by u/donohoe

Traster · 4 years ago

Let's ignore the larger point (which is that this is just one of a million possible edge cases where autopilot could systematically fail), I could absolutely see Tesla just bodging in a "If you see emergency vehicle lights flashing disengage" - it'd perfectly reasonable to say that you shouldn't be using autopilot in that situation because you should be paying attention and ready to react to the emergency vehicle.

mikejb · 4 years ago

As much as it would be a solution to Tesla's problem, it would impact Tesla's overall plan and strategy. Automatically disengaging when emergency vehicles are detected is a huge barrier in their selling strategy ("It can drive itself, it's just not allowed yet to for legal reasons, but soon").

mikejb commented on Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers? thegradient.pub/are-self-... · Posted by u/atg_abhishek

zzzpaz · 5 years ago

> Companies also aim for a service-type of business, where you basically take a cab - just without a driver (who again can get distracted, tired, etc.)

I'm not seeing this with the current situation, given that everybody is aiming to sell the same amount of cars, but just self driving. That's how Tesla get the evaluation that it gets (total addressable market) and I can't see a fleet of robo taxi in the horizon yet.

So said, I'd agree if this is what we're leaning towards but again, is not what it seems to be going to be. If that would be the case, it falls under the "mass transportation" that I was referring to before.

> and to which you said you have more or less the same opinion

Well, they do not exists yet (Tesla even suggest not to run their car autonomously). Will not exists to the extend that we think they'd exists.

I think there would be space in which self driving will be probably adopted (eg. For example last mile delivery, robo taxi etc) but I can't see this being something that everybody must have. We can optimize the amount of cars around the roads by just sharing them. Yet all the current automakers + new one are addressing the problem (once again) but giving each and everyone of us a new self driving car. We need way less car, less pollution (electric cars still pollute, way less, but differently) more mass transportation systems. I can't see how this world can work with 7 billion people owning a car. Luckily there are countries where you can live without a car and where mass transportation is a thing.

So said, I was not the one writing that comment and I would've have said something like that either.

mikejb · 5 years ago

> I'm not seeing this with the current situation

It's what Waymo's is currently doing. So far, you only can get automated Taxis (in some regions) - you cannot buy an automated vehicle yet.

As I see we do agree that they will exist - and we also agree that they will never have 100% worldwide adoption. That would be a ludicrous assumption. Someone not buying a car now will not buy a self-driving car either. Someone never taking a cab will not take a driverless cab. I don't know how that was assumed or where that was ever claimed.

mikejb commented on Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers? thegradient.pub/are-self-... · Posted by u/atg_abhishek

buildint · 5 years ago

I agree.

However I just wanted to say that a good driver can still avoid crashes even if not 'at fault' by driving defensively.

A friend of mine is a bad driver (in my opinion) but has never had an at fault accident. They have however had plenty of not-at-fault accidents but we're probably somewhat to blame or could have avoided if being more careful.

mikejb · 5 years ago

I think this also translates to self-driving cars. I actually think automated cars have an edge there, because of 2 reasons:

1. Improved visibility: A human driver sits in the driver seat, and looks at the outside world from inside the car - partly through mirrors, partly with the view obscured. A self-driving car (at last current potential vehicles) has a view without being obstructed by the car's frame.

2. No limitation on focus: As a human driver, I can look to the front, or the back, or the sides, but I can't look everywhere all the time. I can do my best to maintain an overview of my surroundings, but need to update this constantly by changing where I'm looking - if I want to see if there's someone behind me, I (for a moment) have to stop looking where I'm going. Automated vehicles don't need to stop looking to the front to see to their back or the side. They can see a car 200 feet away coming from the right without having to miss the pedestrian coming from the left.

I'm not saying that self-proclaimed self-driving cars do this already, but looking at perception capabilities, self-driving cars have the potential to avoid more accidents than humans.

mikejb commented on Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers? thegradient.pub/are-self-... · Posted by u/atg_abhishek

michaelt · 5 years ago

Have you ever accelerated into the back of a fire truck, which was stationary on the freeway, with bright flashing lights on it, in dry conditions, with ideal visibility and lighting, while travelling at a mere 31 miles per hour? [1]

I mean, I acknowledge that some accidents will always be unavoidable. Urban driving where someone steps out from between vehicles. Challenging conditions like fog and dust clouds. Sensor malfunctions. A driver coming in the opposite direction swerving into your lane. I'm not saying a self-driving car should avoid 100% of accidents.

But avoiding large clearly visible stationary objects? I'd like to think most drivers on the road can manage that.

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HA...

mikejb · 5 years ago

I think you're confusing a Tesla with a self-driving car.

mikejb commented on Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers? thegradient.pub/are-self-... · Posted by u/atg_abhishek

zzzpaz · 5 years ago

My argument if that a mix of human plus self driving cars as yet to be tried at massive scale (eg. 50% self driving / 50% human or whatever that percentage is). With this mixture I don't think we will be able to actually "reduce" accident just because there are less human.

You've to see the distribution of whom create accident, example if 80% is caused by distraction then maybe you could reduce the number of accident by having self driving cars. But most of the current modern cars have many automatic detector that get triggered when a danger is detected.

We can say that these cars are expensive and as such people who buy old cars without this systems are more likely to cause accident.

The same people won't buy self driving cars due to the cost. So I'd argue that maybe we won't see much improvement unless a large percentage of people actually buy self driving cars

The technology is century away for mass distribution, same as cars nowadays are still not available in evey household around the world and there are plenty of countries driving super polluting cars taken from "first world" country

mikejb · 5 years ago

Ok, I think we're having 2 separate conversations:

a) What's the impact of self-driving cars at what point of distribution

and b) What's the distribution of self-driving cars going to be.

Regarding the impact: modern vehicles are getting better at minimizing the impact of accidents, and are starting to avoid accidents, mostly in the form of avoiding rear-ending another vehicle. But Self-driving cars are on another level there: They can recognize someone possibly running a red light, and act accordingly (not entering the intersection, evacuating the intersection quickly, etc.). They have sensors to continuously monitor their surroundings with a focus a human can't have, and modern vehicles don't bring the sensors for it because of the actions a human-driven vehicle can take are highly limited (Maybe a warning-beep, tightening seatbelts and prepping to fire airbags - but nothing in terms of avoidance. And you need a fairly fancy new vehicle for that). Additionally, also drivers of expensive / new vehicles crash. They have phones like anyone else, drink like anyone else, get tired or distracted like anyone else.

Regarding the distribution of self-driving cars: As I said, it's not feasible to assume that by the time you can buy or rent a self-driving car in the bay area, you'll also be able to buy or rent a self-driving car in Mogadishu. Additionally, ownership is one aspect of automated vehicles. Companies also aim for a service-type of business, where you basically take a cab - just without a driver (who again can get distracted, tired, etc.)

Now, if you say "we're a century away from having 50% self-driving cars in Somalia" - I wouldn't disagree. But the comment that started this discussion (and to which you said you have more or less the same opinion) questioned their present and future existence:

> Self-driving cars do not (and will not, if you ask me) exist

Maybe we're disagreeing on a misunderstanding?

mikejb commented on Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers? thegradient.pub/are-self-... · Posted by u/atg_abhishek

zzzpaz · 5 years ago

I'm more or less of the same opinion and honestly. The fact that human drivers are unsafe adding new "automated" drivers in the road would automatically make the human one safer? I don't think so. Before you can reach a point where all the cars are fully autonomous you'd need decades if not century and we're here discussing that having them on the road would be better. Well, we'd see what data once this cars are around brings to us, but human machine mixture in a road sounds like a mess that we'd want to be saved from.

Reason why self driving cars are rather hard to be mainstream:

- they're freaking expensive, currently, even the "normal cars" are not always accessible to everyone in this planet, yet we assume that the entire world population has enough money to buy Teslas and sleep while going to work like is an extension of California.

- despite having common traffic rules, people drive how they want to. If you've drove long enough and in different places of the world you'd notice that: traffic rules are an opinion, driving style changes from city to city within the same country, if not district to district. "Exception" are the norm: people park where they're not supposed to, people go where they're not supposed to, people stop where they're not supposed to like all the time.

- self driving cars make economical sense only under certain conditions, and even then the time spent automating that is yet to be proven effective. Of course you can argue that we've something working, but at this stage is rather a prototype that handle base cases.

If we want to have self driving car, just have them only. Not mix them with human to create a perfect condition to have new accidents were the insurance would have challenging time on defining who's fault.

I'd rather invest money on mass transportation systems (eg. Metro, train, buses)

mikejb · 5 years ago

Auotmated drivers don't make the human driver safer - they (should) make traffic safer by reducing the number of human drivers that would cause accidents. I don't think we're there yet, but I also don't think this is centuries away, based on the progress made in recent years. I also don't think this will be instantly world-wide: Distribution of automated vehicles will be just like the distribution of any other commodity. In some parts of this world it's infeasible to have a car for a significant portion of the population - it'd be ridiculous to assume those parts of the world will have self-driving cars by the time they're available in the Bay Area.

It's also inevitable that human and automated drivers will share infrastructure. That's where the development is going, it's what will happen. There won't be a switch like "from tomorrow on, only automated vehicles can drive in San Francisco".

I agree with the mass transportation system investment, particularly in the US. But if you argue against financial feasibility of self-driving cars in regions, you have to apply the same scrutiny to public transport investments.

mikejb commented on Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers? thegradient.pub/are-self-... · Posted by u/atg_abhishek

KaiserPro · 5 years ago

> Levels 3-5 are considered Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) in which the driver does not need to pay attention to the road.

I'm going to say that's patently wrong.

as the article points out at level 3, the control system is likely to drop out and punt hard decisions over to the driver at any time. This is exceptionally dangerous because there is almost never enough time to react properly (unless the driver was actively paying attention)

at level 3 you really still need to pay attention.

mikejb · 5 years ago

I think Lvl3 is one of the most dangerous levels a car can be at, based on the experience Waymo (back then Chauffeur) made: Humans are even worse at monitoring than they are at driving. It's incredibly boring. Their test-drivers (who got extensive training for what to do and what not to do) started to do anything but pay attention, including taking a nap, before they pulled the plug on the incremental approach.

And we see this partially with Tesla now. Some drivers start to trust the system so much that they start to do anything but pay attention - partially even bypassing the pesky systems that remind them that they are required to take over at any moment.