Support NeoGAF

[Acorn]

"Pfft laws and legal orders. Doing illegal shit is just disruption."

I fucking despise these companies that ignore laws and govt turns a blind eye whilst fucking a working class dude for parking infringements or other minor shit.

 

[neemmss]

so show the diagnostic logs, uber.

They will really gladly give them, but you're not going to learn anything from it. It's under routine audit and when the audit ends they will present them.

 

[Crayon]

This will not be an instant process, but I doubt insurance companies will care about poor people. And aside from that, things like Uber are working on cars as a service so you don't buy a car, you share.

I think I'm starting to understand where the fervor for self driving cars is coming from...

Poor people shouldn't have Cars. This is like when technochrati discuss the homeless "problem" in sf.

 

[Forsaken82]

"The footage shows multiple minor violations or potentially dangerous moves, such as failing to fully brake at a stop sign"

Yeah... such as failing to fully brake at stop signs... Sounds like manned vehicles in chicago... Learn to fucking drive yourselves before you start programming AI. No shit they don't follow rules of the road.

 

[How About No]

I didn't realize Uber had self-driving cars already on the road. Damn, time moves fast.

Clearly it's still too early for these, so I don't blame you

 

[MJPIA]

Is that seriously Uber's answer?

lol wtf

Actually its the other way around, Uber had their blog announce their rollout of self driving car tests which stated how they believe they are exempt and don't need to comply with the rules California has for testing self driving cars and then when the DMV learned about it they are all wtf oh no you don't and sent the letter.

 

[FStop7]

"Pfft laws and legal orders. Doing illegal shit is just disruption."

I fucking despise these companies that ignore laws and govt turns a blind eye whilst fucking a working class dude for parking infringements or other minor shit.

Unchecked corporatism is literally one of the definitions of fascism. Good thing the Uber CEO has a seat in the Trump Administration.

 

[Joni]

I think I'm starting to understand where the fervor for self driving cars is coming from...

Poor people shouldn't have Cars. This is like when technochrati discuss the homeless "problem" in sf.

Yes, that is what you should read into it. Not that self-driving cars will challenge the concept of car ownership. Not that we need selfdriving cars exclusively because of the huge amount of traffic deaths.This will be like the switch from gas to electric cars. At one point you will have to pull the switch.

 

[Makonero]

So, is Uber going to be the company that ruins self-driving cars for everyone?

i would bet on it

 

[MattKeil]

Good. I don't want self driving cars at all

It's inevitable. Only a matter of time.

 

[ZackieChan]

I think I'm starting to understand where the fervor for self driving cars is coming from...

Poor people shouldn't have Cars. This is like when technochrati discuss the homeless "problem" in sf.

You actually think that all this money is being poured into driverless vehicles in order to prevent poor people from having cars?

 

[whitehawk]

I've often thought this way about self driving cars. They are the future, but they need to be tested more than any other product on the market. It's not a big deal if a video game or a phone has some bugs, but if a self driving car has bugs, someone could die.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Man this combined with their financial numbers, this company is toast. They should sell themselves while they can.



You have to do positive and negative testing. That attitude gets you nowhere in software development.

Their entire existence hinges on eliminating having to pay those pesky drivers, so they'll keep plugging along.

 

[out0v0rder]

Hmm...video submitted by someone who manages a traditional cab company

 

[Ashes]

I've often thought this way about self driving cars. They are the future, but they need to be tested more than any other product on the market. It's not a big deal if a video game or a phone has some bugs, but if a self driving car has bugs, someone could die.

Everything that has ever worried me about ai controlled vehicles boils down to this.

 

[eyeball_kid]

Uber's management consistently makes arrogant and questionable decisions. I think they're trying to push this to market early because 1) they are not really a tech company and don't respect the R&D process, 2) more concerned with a PR win than being safe.

I use Lyft whenever possible now. Happy with the experience and giving my business to a more ethical company.

 

[Crayon]

You actually think that all this money is being poured into driverless vehicles in order to prevent poor people from having cars?

You actually think private companies are pouring money into this to save lives?

Millions of increasingly poor people be compelled to spend 10-30 bucks a day on uber getting to and from work because they can no longer afford the driving priveledge.

If this was a public program it would be different. It's getting rammed thru by private companies and it could lead to an uneven burden on the poor.

I have a feeling the GOP will love it. That's often a good indicator of what side of the issue you're on.

 

[TheYanger]

I guess I just don't like the idea of losing control over something like driving, I don't think I'd be able to completely trust a machine like a car with my life as crazy as that sounds. There's also the one story where the self driving car would put the life of the passengers first before anyone else including pedestrians. I'd like to think in that situation I'd rather crash and possibly die than to survive and kill some one else on the street. It's certainly for the best for all cars be self driving with the amount of bad drivers out there but I'd hate for insurance or any other kind of permits to keep driving older cars come into place or be able to only drive on a track. I guess I'm just too attached to my car. I treat it as an extension of myself, I fix every little problem myself and love working on it and not gonna lie I love showing off all the work I put into it by driving it around. I feel like an old man afraid of change lol.

You'd like to think all of these things, but thyey are all statistically wrong.

 

[Fragamemnon]

they are not really a tech company and don't respect the R&D process,

This is completely not true-Uber is nothing but a tech company.

This move is just Uber trying to find regulatory success in the same way that it did in the past-by just doing things and then fighting over it with regulators after it was already happening. The pace at which the company's leadership wants to move at simply isn't reconcilable with the pace of regulation (even when, like in CA, it's pretty reasonable).

 

[Lord Panda]

I must be the only one completely against self driving cars. I love driving, it's a fun hobby of mine, I guess I'd be cool with it as an optional feature.

Betterment of mankind > Your Hobby.

 

[rokkerkory]

good riddens

make it safe first please

 

[eyeball_kid]

This is completely not true-Uber is nothing but a tech company.

This move is just Uber trying to find regulatory success in the same way that it did in the past-by just doing things and then fighting over it with regulators after it was already happening. The pace at which the company's leadership wants to move at simply isn't reconcilable with the pace of regulation (even when, like in CA, it's pretty reasonable).

Uber having a mobile app does not make them a tech company. They are primarily a disruptive transportation company. They do not have the DNA of tech, of serious R&D, in them. Hence the fact that they're endangering the public by putting half-baked AI cars on public roads.

 

[SapientWolf]

Maybe I'm cynical, but it seems like the only reason to do this is to hide the data before it erodes public confidence in self-driving Ubers. Presumably so they can rush them to market.

 

[Freshmaker]

It's possible? Or the humans were driving at the time and made the mistakes. They'd have the proof to show it.

Again, these cars have been all over Pittsburgh roads for 3 months with no errors.

No errors?

http://qz.com/798092/a-self-driving-uber-car-went-the-wrong-way-on-a-one-way-street-in-pittsburgh/

 

[Dude Abides]

Hmm...video submitted by someone who manages a traditional cab company

Yeah the video must be faked.

 

[Foffy]

It's possible? Or the humans were driving at the time and made the mistakes. They'd have the proof to show it.

Again, these cars have been all over Pittsburgh roads for 3 months with no errors.

I probably harp on driverless cars as the straight up future, but the bolded isn't true.

Remember, this is technology in its infancy regarding mainstream application. The rate of improvement will be huge and noteworthy (Tesla's driverless model for their cars are an example of this) but there are present kinks to iron out.

It will be a few years before this normalizes on the road. Right now we're in the "apply it to everyday living" phase, and that takes time. Especially if you want to entertain the fact Uber pulled the trigger very, very early, both as an attempt of haste and a way to begin normalizing it.

Any kinks and problems with the technology likely will not exist for very long in the 2020s. I also doubt Amazon's new plans for driverless trucks or Google's Waymo project will face the problems Uber has, as they're not designed on a race to get rid of their employees as the immediate, obvious goal.

 

[Joni]

You actually think private companies are pouring money into this to save lives?

Millions of increasingly poor people be compelled to spend 10-30 bucks a day on uber getting to and from work because they can no longer afford the driving priveledge.

If this was a public program it would be different. It's getting rammed thru by private companies and it could lead to an uneven burden on the poor.

I have a feeling the GOP will love it. That's often a good indicator of what side of the issue you're on.

Same was said about cars. They were the definition of only for the rich. No one poor could afford one. Look how that turned out.

 

[Vivalaraza]

I haven't kept up to date with uber at all lately, why are they bleeding money?

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

Good good. Cancel the self driving cars. I've waited for this day.

Pittsburgh, Arizona, Nevada and Florida in particular have been leaders in this way, and by doing so have made clear that they are pro technology.

I changed my mind just now that I realized Pittsburgh has been given statehood in our autonomous future society.

 

[Dali]

I haven't kept up to date with uber at all lately, why are they bleeding money?

Their whole reason for existing is undercutting traditional taxi services by skirting laws that require a permit to operate as a car service as well as not having to provide basic benefits to their employees because they call them contract. Cities are only going to put up with them not getting paid their due for so long and they are likely fighting a losing battle on the way they classify their employees. Apparently paying their drivers accounts for their biggest losses, so just imagine if they had to provide full time employmee benefits like vacation and paid sick days.

 

[Extra Sauce]

 

[gaugebozo]

When I was a kid I had a magazine that predicted self-driving cars by the time I turned 17. That was in the year 2000.

 

[KDR_11k]

This is completely not true-Uber is nothing but a tech company.

This move is just Uber trying to find regulatory success in the same way that it did in the past-by just doing things and then fighting over it with regulators after it was already happening. The pace at which the company's leadership wants to move at simply isn't reconcilable with the pace of regulation (even when, like in CA, it's pretty reasonable).

It's their way of gaining an edge over the competition, while competitors comply with the laws Uber just brazenly flaunts them and then babbles about innovation and disruption when caught.

 

[Dali]

When I was a kid I had a magazine that predicted self-driving cars by the time I turned 17. That was in the year 2000.

What year did that magazine have for sexbots? I'm asking for a friend.

 

[Sakura]

I don't understand why Uber doesn't just get the proper permits and stuff.
Do they just not want to spend the money?

 

[TAJ]

This excuse seems like obvious bullshit. Aren't the human drivers only there to babysit the AI?

 

[Helznicht]

I do not understand how self driving cars should ever be allowed as just OTS software.

I work for a company that develops fail-safe systems to enforce trains to obey the signaling systems to ensure no collisions or unsafe movements (we make fail-safe signal systems also).

To reach a fail-safe state, there is a level of hardware, software and principle complexity involved that its clear these robot cars do not have. Clue, viewing footage from a camera feed could NEVER be fail-safe. Having to fall back to a driver is NOT fail-safe.

In the railway industry, this is what is expected to ensure the safety of both life and property. I will never understand how this will ever be acceptable from a safety perspective. Systems will fail, ensuring they cannot fail in a way to allow accidents is the trick. Unless the cars have some means to communicate with the environment beyond "cameras", some one will get hurt/die, and this pipe dream will all come crashing down.

 

[CornBurrito]

Same was said about cars. They were the definition of only for the rich. No one poor could afford one. Look how that turned out.

It turned out with the automotive industry basically using bribes to destroy public transportation in this country making car ownership less optional for the majority of the population.

 

[Pagusas]

I do not understand how self driving cars should ever be allowed as just OTS software.

I work for a company that develops fail-safe systems to enforce trains to obey the signaling systems to ensure no collisions or unsafe movements (we make fail-safe signal systems also).

To reach a fail-safe state, there is a level of hardware, software and principle complexity involved that its clear these robot cars do not have. Clue, viewing footage from a camera feed could NEVER be fail-safe. Having to fall back to a driver is NOT fail-safe.

In the railway industry, this is what is expected to ensure the safety of both life and property. I will never understand how this will ever be acceptable from a safety perspective. Systems will fail, ensuring they cannot fail in a way to allow accidents is the trick. Unless the cars have some means to communicate with the environment beyond "cameras", some one will get hurt/die, and this pipe dream will all come crashing down.

Dont they use a form of radar also? I thought cameras were only one small part of the system.

 

[kingocfs]

I do not understand how self driving cars should ever be allowed as just OTS software.

I work for a company that develops fail-safe systems to enforce trains to obey the signaling systems to ensure no collisions or unsafe movements (we make fail-safe signal systems also).

To reach a fail-safe state, there is a level of hardware, software and principle complexity involved that its clear these robot cars do not have. Clue, viewing footage from a camera feed could NEVER be fail-safe. Having to fall back to a driver is NOT fail-safe.

In the railway industry, this is what is expected to ensure the safety of both life and property. I will never understand how this will ever be acceptable from a safety perspective. Systems will fail, ensuring they cannot fail in a way to allow accidents is the trick. Unless the cars have some means to communicate with the environment beyond "cameras", some one will get hurt/die, and this pipe dream will all come crashing down.

They're not just using cameras for object recognition. It's a combination of an occupancy grid, a module that labels raw data in that grid, predictive AI to determine trajectory of these objects and a planner that takes the car around them.

But the reality is that the software will absolutely fail as all software does; there will be accidents. But if FULLY autonomous cars are just TWICE as safe as the average human driver, that's huge. Average human driver has an accident every 17 years.

The problem lies with the idea of asking humans to stay alert and trust AI at the same time. THAT is extremely dangerous. There can't be any half measures with this.

 

[Helznicht]

They're not just using cameras for object recognition. It's a combination of an occupancy grid, a module that labels raw data in that grid, predictive AI to determine trajectory of these objects and a planner that takes the car around them.

But the reality is that the software will absolutely fail as all software does; there will be accidents. But if FULLY autonomous cars are just TWICE as safe as the average human driver, that's huge. Average human driver has an accident every 17 years.

The problem lies with the idea of asking humans to stay alert and trust AI at the same time. THAT is extremely dangerous. There can't be any half measures with this.

Yep. You made my point better. If ANY of these many systems fail, they need to be detected and force the car to stop, but also stop in a way that could not cause an accident. And certainly cannot require a human to "monitor" to reach its safety level.

Twice as safe as a human driver. ok. Who is responsible then when the inevitable accident happens? For my company, if our system fails in a way that allows an accident to occur, we are responsible. Does Uber or Apple share the same point of view? What will courts say? If Uber feels they are not liable, they they will likely not put in the extra testing/hardware/software to ensure what I feel is an appropriate safety level.

 

[ExVicis]

I must be the only one completely against self driving cars. I love driving, it's a fun hobby of mine, I guess I'd be cool with it as an optional feature.

I'm kind of understand. I'm not against it it but I do like driving and I think it's a fun option to have. But in terms of benefits for the Public I don't really see it. I don't really see why there's so much a push and enthusiasm for it. Especially on this forum where every self-driving car thread is full of people saying "We need this technology NOW!" I guess everyone on here is really pushing to have the Robot-AI era happen in their lifetime?

 

[CornBurrito]

I'd rather have fewer unnecessary deaths and greater burden on the legal system (since they'd have to figure out who is to blame). But that's just from the perspective of valuing human life.

 

[Joni]

It turned out with the automotive industry basically using bribes to destroy public transportation in this country making car ownership less optional for the majority of the population.

And prices dropping to make that accessibility possible.

 

[kingocfs]

Yep. You made my point better. If ANY of these many systems fail, they need to be detected and force the car to stop, but also stop in a way that could not cause an accident. And certainly cannot require a human to "monitor" to reach its safety level.

Right. The idea of passing control of the vehicle back and forth between the AI and the human will lead to disaster. That is exactly the problem that Uber is experiencing right now.

You know why they don't want to succumb to what California is asking of them? Because they don't want to have to publicly disclose the fact that these errors are because the humans driving them are disengaging, or taking over control, almost once per mile during their testing...on public roads. It's no surprise their incident levels are higher because of it - they are simply behind Google, Ford, etc. in developing their cars.

Twice as safe as a human driver. ok. Who is responsible then when the inevitable accident happens? For my company, if our system fails in a way that allows an accident to occur, we are responsible. Does Uber or Apple share the same point of view? What will courts say? If Uber feels they are not liable, they they will likely not put in the extra testing/hardware/software to ensure what I feel is an appropriate safety level.

If the car is fully autonomous when it is commercially available (as they should be), humans are not responsible for accidents. The companies will foot the bill, and that's because there will be FAR fewer accidents.

 

[CornBurrito]

And prices dropping to make that accessibility possible.

Yeah that's one way to spin the lack of decent public transport in the US as a positive.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I love how corporate maleficence is being dismissed just because this is a pet technology that many are emotionally attached to.

Right. The idea of passing control of the vehicle back and forth between the AI and the human will lead to disaster. That is exactly the problem that Uber is experiencing right now.

You know why they don't want to succumb to what California is asking of them? Because they don't want to have to publicly disclose the fact that these errors are because the humans driving them are disengaging, or taking over control, almost once per mile during their testing...on public roads. It's no surprise their incident levels are higher because of it - they are simply behind Google, Ford, etc. in developing their cars.



If the car is fully autonomous when it is commercially available (as they should be), humans are not responsible for accidents. The companies will foot the bill, and that's because there will be FAR fewer accidents.

This is all wishful thinking. The current Tesla technology does the handoff quite well, especially when the system is overwhelmed.

 

[Joni]

Yeah that's one way to spin the lack of decent public transport in the US as a positive.

I'm quite sure that car companies managed to drop prices before fucking up public transport. Otherwise that strategy wouldn't have worked. But you know, other countries still have competent public transport and still managed to get a thriving car market.

I love how corporate maleficence is being dismissed just because this is a pet technology that many are emotionally attached to.

Uber sucks when it comes to obeying laws. Nobody is surprised anymore.

 

[joe2187]

I love how corporate maleficence is being dismissed just because this is a pet technology that many are emotionally attached to.
This is all wishful thinking. The current Tesla technology does the handoff quite well, especially when the system is overwhelmed.

Yeah...but robots are cool.

Pay no attention to the rich man behind the curtain.

 

[Redberyl]

Nice that the windows are tinted so you can't see what the person behind the wheel was doing.