▲ 8 ▼ Fired Tesla Employee Posts New Video of Full Self-Driving Running Red Light (jalopnik.com) submitted 3 years ago by cyu@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.ml 37 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/81940 There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
[–] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (2 children) Double the fine for 'self-driving' traffic violations and bill the manufacturer for half. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 years ago (3 children) Bill the manufacturer 100%, IMO. Thats why I think self driving cars beg an unanswerable legal question, as when the car drives for you, why would you be at fault? How will businesses survive if they have to take full accountability for accidents caused by self-driving cars? I think its almost always pointless to hold back innovation, but in this case I think a full ban on self driving cars would be a great move. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) The most basic driving like long stretches of highway shouldn't be banned from using AI/automated driving. The fast paced inner city driving should be augmented but not fully automatic. Same goes for driving in inclement weather: augmented with hard limits on speed and automated braking for anything that could result in a crash Edit: I meant this statement as referring to the technology in it's current consumer form (what is available to the public right at this moment). I fully expect that as the technology matures so will the percentage of incidents decline. We are likely to attain a largely driverless society one day in my lifetime permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) "Self driving with driver assist" or whatever they call it when it isn't 100% automated is basically super fancy cruise control and should be treated as such. The main problem with the term autopilot is that for airplanes it means 100% control and very misleading when used for fancy cruise control in cars. I agree that it should be limited in use to highways and other open roads, like when cruise control should be used. People using cruise control in the city without being in control to brake is the same basic issue. Not 100% fully automated with no expectation of driver involvement should be allowed when it has surpassed regular drivers. To be honest, we might even be there with how terrible human drivers are... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Autopilot in aircraft is actually kinda comparable, it still needs a skilled human operator to set it up and monitor it (and other flight controls) all of the time. And in most modes it's not even really all that autonomous - at most it follows a pre-programmed route. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago Can’t the newer ones take off and land as well? permalink fedilink source parent [–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [This comment has been deleted by an automated system] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* I'm pretty sure there are autonomous cars driving around San Francisco, and have been for some time. EDIT: Here's an uplifting story about San Francisco-ians(?) interacting with the self-driving cars. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The responsible party should be the owner of the vehicle, not the manufacturer or passenger. If a company runs an automated ride share service, for example, that company should be liable. Likewise if you own a car and use the self-driving feature, you are at fault it it goes wrong, so you should use it at your own risk. That said, for the owner to be truly responsible, they need ownership of the self-driving code, as well as diagnostics for them to be able to monitor it. If they don't have that, do they truly own the car? That said, there's nothing stopping a manufacturer or dealer from making a deal to cover self-driving fines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) Well exactly, I see no way that all the self driving source code will be FOSS (I don't think corporations would ever willingly sign onto this). So the responsible party in the case of a malfunction should therefore be the company, because in a full self driving setup the occupant is not controlling the vehicle, and has no reasonable way to ensure the safety of the code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago Which is why it should be dual responsibility. The owner of the vehicle chose to use the feature, so they have responsibility. If it malfunctions when the driver was following the instructions, the manufacturer has responsibility. Both are culpable, so they should share responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent [–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Nah. Give tesla the same number of points everyone else gets on their license. If the company runs out, no more cars controlled by tesla on the roads.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MeshPotato@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago We already had that in the 70s and 80s. Those were RoRo trains. You put your car on a drive on ramp. Go into the comfy cabin, maybe even a sleeper cabin for over night journeys. Get out at the other end, drive your car down the carrier and explore the area that you've journeyed to with the vehicle that you own. Look up the 89s ABC film about the Ghan railway closing down. I live in Australia and love seeing the distant from my home centre of tue country. Unfortunately long distance trains here have become a lifestyle luxury experience rather than transportation. Same goes for bicycles amd motorcycles. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 years ago (3 children) Bill the manufacturer 100%, IMO. Thats why I think self driving cars beg an unanswerable legal question, as when the car drives for you, why would you be at fault? How will businesses survive if they have to take full accountability for accidents caused by self-driving cars? I think its almost always pointless to hold back innovation, but in this case I think a full ban on self driving cars would be a great move. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) The most basic driving like long stretches of highway shouldn't be banned from using AI/automated driving. The fast paced inner city driving should be augmented but not fully automatic. Same goes for driving in inclement weather: augmented with hard limits on speed and automated braking for anything that could result in a crash Edit: I meant this statement as referring to the technology in it's current consumer form (what is available to the public right at this moment). I fully expect that as the technology matures so will the percentage of incidents decline. We are likely to attain a largely driverless society one day in my lifetime permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) "Self driving with driver assist" or whatever they call it when it isn't 100% automated is basically super fancy cruise control and should be treated as such. The main problem with the term autopilot is that for airplanes it means 100% control and very misleading when used for fancy cruise control in cars. I agree that it should be limited in use to highways and other open roads, like when cruise control should be used. People using cruise control in the city without being in control to brake is the same basic issue. Not 100% fully automated with no expectation of driver involvement should be allowed when it has surpassed regular drivers. To be honest, we might even be there with how terrible human drivers are... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Autopilot in aircraft is actually kinda comparable, it still needs a skilled human operator to set it up and monitor it (and other flight controls) all of the time. And in most modes it's not even really all that autonomous - at most it follows a pre-programmed route. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago Can’t the newer ones take off and land as well? permalink fedilink source parent [–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [This comment has been deleted by an automated system] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* I'm pretty sure there are autonomous cars driving around San Francisco, and have been for some time. EDIT: Here's an uplifting story about San Francisco-ians(?) interacting with the self-driving cars. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The responsible party should be the owner of the vehicle, not the manufacturer or passenger. If a company runs an automated ride share service, for example, that company should be liable. Likewise if you own a car and use the self-driving feature, you are at fault it it goes wrong, so you should use it at your own risk. That said, for the owner to be truly responsible, they need ownership of the self-driving code, as well as diagnostics for them to be able to monitor it. If they don't have that, do they truly own the car? That said, there's nothing stopping a manufacturer or dealer from making a deal to cover self-driving fines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) Well exactly, I see no way that all the self driving source code will be FOSS (I don't think corporations would ever willingly sign onto this). So the responsible party in the case of a malfunction should therefore be the company, because in a full self driving setup the occupant is not controlling the vehicle, and has no reasonable way to ensure the safety of the code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago Which is why it should be dual responsibility. The owner of the vehicle chose to use the feature, so they have responsibility. If it malfunctions when the driver was following the instructions, the manufacturer has responsibility. Both are culpable, so they should share responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) The most basic driving like long stretches of highway shouldn't be banned from using AI/automated driving. The fast paced inner city driving should be augmented but not fully automatic. Same goes for driving in inclement weather: augmented with hard limits on speed and automated braking for anything that could result in a crash Edit: I meant this statement as referring to the technology in it's current consumer form (what is available to the public right at this moment). I fully expect that as the technology matures so will the percentage of incidents decline. We are likely to attain a largely driverless society one day in my lifetime permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) "Self driving with driver assist" or whatever they call it when it isn't 100% automated is basically super fancy cruise control and should be treated as such. The main problem with the term autopilot is that for airplanes it means 100% control and very misleading when used for fancy cruise control in cars. I agree that it should be limited in use to highways and other open roads, like when cruise control should be used. People using cruise control in the city without being in control to brake is the same basic issue. Not 100% fully automated with no expectation of driver involvement should be allowed when it has surpassed regular drivers. To be honest, we might even be there with how terrible human drivers are... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Autopilot in aircraft is actually kinda comparable, it still needs a skilled human operator to set it up and monitor it (and other flight controls) all of the time. And in most modes it's not even really all that autonomous - at most it follows a pre-programmed route. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago Can’t the newer ones take off and land as well? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) "Self driving with driver assist" or whatever they call it when it isn't 100% automated is basically super fancy cruise control and should be treated as such. The main problem with the term autopilot is that for airplanes it means 100% control and very misleading when used for fancy cruise control in cars. I agree that it should be limited in use to highways and other open roads, like when cruise control should be used. People using cruise control in the city without being in control to brake is the same basic issue. Not 100% fully automated with no expectation of driver involvement should be allowed when it has surpassed regular drivers. To be honest, we might even be there with how terrible human drivers are... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Autopilot in aircraft is actually kinda comparable, it still needs a skilled human operator to set it up and monitor it (and other flight controls) all of the time. And in most modes it's not even really all that autonomous - at most it follows a pre-programmed route. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago Can’t the newer ones take off and land as well? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Autopilot in aircraft is actually kinda comparable, it still needs a skilled human operator to set it up and monitor it (and other flight controls) all of the time. And in most modes it's not even really all that autonomous - at most it follows a pre-programmed route. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago Can’t the newer ones take off and land as well? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 4am@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago Can’t the newer ones take off and land as well? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [This comment has been deleted by an automated system] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* I'm pretty sure there are autonomous cars driving around San Francisco, and have been for some time. EDIT: Here's an uplifting story about San Francisco-ians(?) interacting with the self-driving cars. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* I'm pretty sure there are autonomous cars driving around San Francisco, and have been for some time. EDIT: Here's an uplifting story about San Francisco-ians(?) interacting with the self-driving cars. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) The responsible party should be the owner of the vehicle, not the manufacturer or passenger. If a company runs an automated ride share service, for example, that company should be liable. Likewise if you own a car and use the self-driving feature, you are at fault it it goes wrong, so you should use it at your own risk. That said, for the owner to be truly responsible, they need ownership of the self-driving code, as well as diagnostics for them to be able to monitor it. If they don't have that, do they truly own the car? That said, there's nothing stopping a manufacturer or dealer from making a deal to cover self-driving fines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) Well exactly, I see no way that all the self driving source code will be FOSS (I don't think corporations would ever willingly sign onto this). So the responsible party in the case of a malfunction should therefore be the company, because in a full self driving setup the occupant is not controlling the vehicle, and has no reasonable way to ensure the safety of the code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago Which is why it should be dual responsibility. The owner of the vehicle chose to use the feature, so they have responsibility. If it malfunctions when the driver was following the instructions, the manufacturer has responsibility. Both are culpable, so they should share responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) Well exactly, I see no way that all the self driving source code will be FOSS (I don't think corporations would ever willingly sign onto this). So the responsible party in the case of a malfunction should therefore be the company, because in a full self driving setup the occupant is not controlling the vehicle, and has no reasonable way to ensure the safety of the code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago Which is why it should be dual responsibility. The owner of the vehicle chose to use the feature, so they have responsibility. If it malfunctions when the driver was following the instructions, the manufacturer has responsibility. Both are culpable, so they should share responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago Which is why it should be dual responsibility. The owner of the vehicle chose to use the feature, so they have responsibility. If it malfunctions when the driver was following the instructions, the manufacturer has responsibility. Both are culpable, so they should share responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Nah. Give tesla the same number of points everyone else gets on their license. If the company runs out, no more cars controlled by tesla on the roads.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MeshPotato@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago We already had that in the 70s and 80s. Those were RoRo trains. You put your car on a drive on ramp. Go into the comfy cabin, maybe even a sleeper cabin for over night journeys. Get out at the other end, drive your car down the carrier and explore the area that you've journeyed to with the vehicle that you own. Look up the 89s ABC film about the Ghan railway closing down. I live in Australia and love seeing the distant from my home centre of tue country. Unfortunately long distance trains here have become a lifestyle luxury experience rather than transportation. Same goes for bicycles amd motorcycles. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MeshPotato@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago We already had that in the 70s and 80s. Those were RoRo trains. You put your car on a drive on ramp. Go into the comfy cabin, maybe even a sleeper cabin for over night journeys. Get out at the other end, drive your car down the carrier and explore the area that you've journeyed to with the vehicle that you own. Look up the 89s ABC film about the Ghan railway closing down. I live in Australia and love seeing the distant from my home centre of tue country. Unfortunately long distance trains here have become a lifestyle luxury experience rather than transportation. Same goes for bicycles amd motorcycles. permalink fedilink source parent