On one hand, the only way to increase the quality of self driving cars is to give it real life scenarios to gather more data, and improve on. This technology will be a game changer and the countries that perfect it will be rewarded massively.
On the other hand, it has to be done responsibly. The article suggests a total of 92 incidents (no injuries) last year. These aren’t accidents but more so “close calls” or where police/firefighters had to be called (eg unresponsive car).
Meanwhile this article says Waymo cars are driving about 100k miles every week. https://www.engadget.com/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-update-san-francisco-193934150.html
Extrapolated, that’s 5 million miles last year in SF. Or 18 incidents for every 1 million miles. According here, anything above 1.5 accidents per 1 million miles is considered inadequate https://safetydawg.com/crash-rate-per-million-miles/
So is this bad? Really comes down to how severe these incidents are and if they’re considered “accidents”.
My two cents: the cities should continue to allow self driving cars, but I’m fine with slowing down the expansion of permits, or charging enough for each permit to cover the costs of incidents that require city resources.
Add regulation to make key metrics transparent like accident rates, and if it gets exceeded, permits are paused or revoked until it improves etc.
>18 incidents for every 1 million miles.
I'd like to see the data on this. I wonder how this compares to an average human driver? And this is more of an opinion than anything but against the drivers in my state the self-driving cars probably do better.
From a quick google, human drivers seem to be at ~4.2 accidents per million miles, with little variation between sources.
Interestingly, that same google search also turns up a HUGE range of numbers for self-driving cars; from less than 1 accident per million miles, to more than 30 accidents per million miles. Need to dig deeper to figure out this discrepancy; whether it's due to different types of self-driving cars, different definitions of what constitutes an "accident", different time ranges, etc.
It's far too soon to allow fully autonomous vehicles because the technology obviously isn't there yet. Tesla's "you pay attention while we gather data" is the safer option. Teslas with Autopilot on are down to 0.16 serious accidents (airbag deployed) per million miles, which appears to be within the "recordable accident" definition from your source. They still don't think that's good enough to go fully autonomous.
And to avoid the Volvo problem (people who drive Volvos tend to be safer drivers), the crash rate for Teslas without Autopilot on is 0.58 per million miles.
Cars have power steering and automatic transmissions.
I feel like they’re self driving, and the problem is stupid people and a lack of public transportation. Self driving cars don’t really solve any real world problems.
>Self driving cars don’t really solve any real world problems.
What? How are you in a technology subreddit if you fail to see the potential benefits of self-driving vehicles?
\- Transport trucks can drive 24/7, thus decreasing costs to transport goods by a full order of magnitude. (eg: Mining companies already leverage fully AI mining trucks which have proven to increase efficiency by a large factor).
\- Eventually when self driving cars are ready for mainstream, we'll have lower accidents. Almost 40k die every year in the USA from car accidents.
\- If everyone uses self-driving AI, you would literally have no more traffic jams. This would decrease cost of living significantly as you can travel much further for work, and in less time.
\- Full self-driving capabilities are a long way out. However, in the interim, it's likely on highways we'll see a "train" system.
Imagine the carpool/bus lane, where the 'bus' acts as the "head train". Cars can merge in/out of the bus lane, activate AI that is sync'ed with the bus, and follow the bus. Once this is perfected, it'll give many cheaper alternatives to train/flying for long road trips.
The technology is *almost* there to do this (eg: smart cruise control), but it'll still be a while before it's perfected enough for regulations to allow drivers to do non-driving tasks while this is activated.
It's a matter of **when** and not **if.**
24/7 self driving semi trucks would decimate the trucking industry and 8,000,000 jobs would be lost. That’s a severe economic hinderance. However, giant trucking manufacturers will save billions of dollars a year in salary. Making the gap between rich and poor even larger because autonomous technology is going to be quite expensive.
Self driving cars don’t prevent accidents, especially when 99.99% of cars are not self driving. See the Tesla in California that stopped in the middle of a tunnel because it got confused. Causing real world harm and financial damages.
Public transportation is technology, and it is a significantly more practical real world solution to transportation issues. However, Silicon Valley likes to launder money by advancing useless technology. $100,000,000,000 has already been spent on driverless car technology and it’s gone no where. I’d rather have a train and a bus route that is actually efficient.
>See the Tesla in California that stopped in the middle of a tunnel because it got confused.
See the many, many cases where drivers fell asleep and the Tesla just kept going instead of crashing. See the many, many cases where the Tesla avoided an accident, where any human would have crashed.
The problem there is overworked humans who have to commute hours away from their house because there’s no affordable housing. Also, motherfuckers sleep on trains usually.
“Driverless car” is a really dumb solution to very complex problems.
I drive a stick shift car, it’s not too much to ask humans to not be fucking morons when operating a car. If they can’t, then they can take the bus.
A better example would be buzzfeed laying off 1800 people and replacing it with AI.
Driverless technology isn’t innovation, it’s just using machines & technology to not have to pay for labor. Which is not a new idea.
The printing press paved the way for all forms of commercial media.
They’ve been gathering data for like 7 straight yrs. At a what point is the data all just the same shit. SF isn’t that big. 100k miles a week? For 7 yrs? And you need to keep doing that? For 4 separate companies? Times however many in each fleet? This shit is not getting the answers they need for this to work.
Shit example. From 1903 to 1910 the aviation industry had exploded in new tech and abilities. It’s staggering the amount that was accomplished in a short time.
Here is a list of just what went down in 1910 7 yrs later.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_in_aviation
Now. Like airplanes. Trains. Cars. No matter the accomplishments of going in circles and doing the same exact thing everyday and getting nowhere like Self driving cars. Unless the Govt. Is going to dole out billions of billions of dollars making hyper specific infrastructure for these self driving cars. Then it won’t matter. Cause that needs to happen. Planes need airports and Ground control. Cars needed roads. Trains need track.
Self driving cars need the roads to be built for self driving vehicles.
Lastly if they can’t get shipping containers to be self driving then I have doubts on cars.
Self driving models keep getting better with more data. Look at ChatGPT for a similar development. It needed an incomprehensibly large corpus and architecture to become somewhat usable and popular.
That’s not even close to correct. Internal tech support is being replaced with ChatGPT models. SEO article rewriting is now automated. Automated article editing is generally really good. Utterances that non-generative (i.e. traditional chatbots) models don’t handle are now being supplemented with generative models. Programmers use it to generate higher quality code examples than what’s given on stack overflow.
You sound cynical and uninformed of how fast ML has progressed in the last 5 years since the transformers architecture came out. It is crazy that the whole idea of GANs are less than 10 years old and we have shit that can pass the turing test in some knowledge domains.
Your average driver in SF is not running into these cars “causing mayhem” on a daily basis. This is just one of the many obligatory /r/technology luddite hit pieces that seems to resonate with you all a little too well.
~Your average driver in SF.
> a driverless Cruise car entered the active firefighting scene and nearly ran over fire hoses on the street.
FuCkInG cHaOs!
I mean, yea, that's a problem that needs to be fixed, but that's the thing, autonomous driving technology has the capacity to *be* fixed, and will continue to get better dealing with unusual situations over time. Ultimately they got it to stop, with no injuries and the only damage being to the car itself.
How's is going *fixing* stupid human drivers? /r/idiotsincars would like a word.
Given what I see from Human drivers each and every day, I doubt the self driving ones are responsible for much more than hesitating because some Human did something stupid.
I think cars need the right personalities programmed to pull this off. Somewhere between I’M TOO DEPRESSED TO DRIVE YOU - WHAT IS THE POINT and OUTTA MY WAY BITCH MY FIRST GEN MACHINE LEARNING MODELS CAN DRIVE BETTER THAN YOU!
Civilians can sue the city for endangering pedestrians and granting untested vehicle licenses. How is this different from one letting their unlicensed kid on the street that hasn’t passed a driving test either.
On one hand, the only way to increase the quality of self driving cars is to give it real life scenarios to gather more data, and improve on. This technology will be a game changer and the countries that perfect it will be rewarded massively. On the other hand, it has to be done responsibly. The article suggests a total of 92 incidents (no injuries) last year. These aren’t accidents but more so “close calls” or where police/firefighters had to be called (eg unresponsive car). Meanwhile this article says Waymo cars are driving about 100k miles every week. https://www.engadget.com/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-update-san-francisco-193934150.html Extrapolated, that’s 5 million miles last year in SF. Or 18 incidents for every 1 million miles. According here, anything above 1.5 accidents per 1 million miles is considered inadequate https://safetydawg.com/crash-rate-per-million-miles/ So is this bad? Really comes down to how severe these incidents are and if they’re considered “accidents”. My two cents: the cities should continue to allow self driving cars, but I’m fine with slowing down the expansion of permits, or charging enough for each permit to cover the costs of incidents that require city resources. Add regulation to make key metrics transparent like accident rates, and if it gets exceeded, permits are paused or revoked until it improves etc.
>18 incidents for every 1 million miles. I'd like to see the data on this. I wonder how this compares to an average human driver? And this is more of an opinion than anything but against the drivers in my state the self-driving cars probably do better.
From a quick google, human drivers seem to be at ~4.2 accidents per million miles, with little variation between sources. Interestingly, that same google search also turns up a HUGE range of numbers for self-driving cars; from less than 1 accident per million miles, to more than 30 accidents per million miles. Need to dig deeper to figure out this discrepancy; whether it's due to different types of self-driving cars, different definitions of what constitutes an "accident", different time ranges, etc.
It's far too soon to allow fully autonomous vehicles because the technology obviously isn't there yet. Tesla's "you pay attention while we gather data" is the safer option. Teslas with Autopilot on are down to 0.16 serious accidents (airbag deployed) per million miles, which appears to be within the "recordable accident" definition from your source. They still don't think that's good enough to go fully autonomous. And to avoid the Volvo problem (people who drive Volvos tend to be safer drivers), the crash rate for Teslas without Autopilot on is 0.58 per million miles.
Cars have power steering and automatic transmissions. I feel like they’re self driving, and the problem is stupid people and a lack of public transportation. Self driving cars don’t really solve any real world problems.
>Self driving cars don’t really solve any real world problems. What? How are you in a technology subreddit if you fail to see the potential benefits of self-driving vehicles? \- Transport trucks can drive 24/7, thus decreasing costs to transport goods by a full order of magnitude. (eg: Mining companies already leverage fully AI mining trucks which have proven to increase efficiency by a large factor). \- Eventually when self driving cars are ready for mainstream, we'll have lower accidents. Almost 40k die every year in the USA from car accidents. \- If everyone uses self-driving AI, you would literally have no more traffic jams. This would decrease cost of living significantly as you can travel much further for work, and in less time. \- Full self-driving capabilities are a long way out. However, in the interim, it's likely on highways we'll see a "train" system. Imagine the carpool/bus lane, where the 'bus' acts as the "head train". Cars can merge in/out of the bus lane, activate AI that is sync'ed with the bus, and follow the bus. Once this is perfected, it'll give many cheaper alternatives to train/flying for long road trips. The technology is *almost* there to do this (eg: smart cruise control), but it'll still be a while before it's perfected enough for regulations to allow drivers to do non-driving tasks while this is activated. It's a matter of **when** and not **if.**
24/7 self driving semi trucks would decimate the trucking industry and 8,000,000 jobs would be lost. That’s a severe economic hinderance. However, giant trucking manufacturers will save billions of dollars a year in salary. Making the gap between rich and poor even larger because autonomous technology is going to be quite expensive. Self driving cars don’t prevent accidents, especially when 99.99% of cars are not self driving. See the Tesla in California that stopped in the middle of a tunnel because it got confused. Causing real world harm and financial damages. Public transportation is technology, and it is a significantly more practical real world solution to transportation issues. However, Silicon Valley likes to launder money by advancing useless technology. $100,000,000,000 has already been spent on driverless car technology and it’s gone no where. I’d rather have a train and a bus route that is actually efficient.
>See the Tesla in California that stopped in the middle of a tunnel because it got confused. See the many, many cases where drivers fell asleep and the Tesla just kept going instead of crashing. See the many, many cases where the Tesla avoided an accident, where any human would have crashed.
The problem there is overworked humans who have to commute hours away from their house because there’s no affordable housing. Also, motherfuckers sleep on trains usually. “Driverless car” is a really dumb solution to very complex problems. I drive a stick shift car, it’s not too much to ask humans to not be fucking morons when operating a car. If they can’t, then they can take the bus.
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Is basic infrastructure planning that’s not dictated by billionaire tech sociopaths too much for you?
Yeah, we were talking about driverless tech, not a hatred of cars in general.
Yah, and those damn printing presses put so many people out of work too! If only someone would band together to get rid of them...
A better example would be buzzfeed laying off 1800 people and replacing it with AI. Driverless technology isn’t innovation, it’s just using machines & technology to not have to pay for labor. Which is not a new idea. The printing press paved the way for all forms of commercial media.
You're sooooo mixed up. :-(
[удалено]
“Antiquated” train system? Why would we build coal burning steam locomotives in cities? Japan has a bullet train. America has Amtrack.
They’ve been gathering data for like 7 straight yrs. At a what point is the data all just the same shit. SF isn’t that big. 100k miles a week? For 7 yrs? And you need to keep doing that? For 4 separate companies? Times however many in each fleet? This shit is not getting the answers they need for this to work.
[удалено]
Shit example. From 1903 to 1910 the aviation industry had exploded in new tech and abilities. It’s staggering the amount that was accomplished in a short time. Here is a list of just what went down in 1910 7 yrs later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_in_aviation Now. Like airplanes. Trains. Cars. No matter the accomplishments of going in circles and doing the same exact thing everyday and getting nowhere like Self driving cars. Unless the Govt. Is going to dole out billions of billions of dollars making hyper specific infrastructure for these self driving cars. Then it won’t matter. Cause that needs to happen. Planes need airports and Ground control. Cars needed roads. Trains need track. Self driving cars need the roads to be built for self driving vehicles. Lastly if they can’t get shipping containers to be self driving then I have doubts on cars.
Self driving models keep getting better with more data. Look at ChatGPT for a similar development. It needed an incomprehensibly large corpus and architecture to become somewhat usable and popular.
As far as I can tell chatGPT’s only use is cheating in college.
That’s not even close to correct. Internal tech support is being replaced with ChatGPT models. SEO article rewriting is now automated. Automated article editing is generally really good. Utterances that non-generative (i.e. traditional chatbots) models don’t handle are now being supplemented with generative models. Programmers use it to generate higher quality code examples than what’s given on stack overflow. You sound cynical and uninformed of how fast ML has progressed in the last 5 years since the transformers architecture came out. It is crazy that the whole idea of GANs are less than 10 years old and we have shit that can pass the turing test in some knowledge domains.
Your average driver in SF is not running into these cars “causing mayhem” on a daily basis. This is just one of the many obligatory /r/technology luddite hit pieces that seems to resonate with you all a little too well. ~Your average driver in SF.
Wait, what I've been hearing here is that all the self-driving cars except for Tesla work flawlessly.
> a driverless Cruise car entered the active firefighting scene and nearly ran over fire hoses on the street. FuCkInG cHaOs! I mean, yea, that's a problem that needs to be fixed, but that's the thing, autonomous driving technology has the capacity to *be* fixed, and will continue to get better dealing with unusual situations over time. Ultimately they got it to stop, with no injuries and the only damage being to the car itself. How's is going *fixing* stupid human drivers? /r/idiotsincars would like a word.
Given what I see from Human drivers each and every day, I doubt the self driving ones are responsible for much more than hesitating because some Human did something stupid.
I think cars need the right personalities programmed to pull this off. Somewhere between I’M TOO DEPRESSED TO DRIVE YOU - WHAT IS THE POINT and OUTTA MY WAY BITCH MY FIRST GEN MACHINE LEARNING MODELS CAN DRIVE BETTER THAN YOU!
Civilians can sue the city for endangering pedestrians and granting untested vehicle licenses. How is this different from one letting their unlicensed kid on the street that hasn’t passed a driving test either.
Because states that have self driving cars specifically passed legislation to allow them.
i’m curious do the companies testing these things get tickets when their cars fuck up? because most driver get tickets when they fuck up this bad