Fired Tesla Employee Posts New Video of Full Self-Driving Running Red Light

We could call it a subway. Since it's underground.

I'd like an elevated one.

Why not rebrand subways as the 𝕏-loop and convince Musk it was his idea. Then he can beg billions in funding for them.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=5eHWVjUAukU

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

Adam something now making videos for the new York times? Good for him.

Trains!

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

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.

I agree on both points. Also I think it's important to characterize the 'innovation' of self driving as more social-economic than technological.

The component systems- sensing, processing, communications, power, etc- have a wide range of engineering applications and research and development will inevitably continue no matter the future of self-driving. Self driving only solves a very particular social-economic-technological issue that only exists because of how humans historically chose to address the same issue with older technology. Self driving is more of a product than a 'technology' in my book.

So my point there is that I don't think a ban on full self driving really qualifies as 'holding back innovation' at all. It's just telling companies not to develop a specific product. Hyperbolic example but nobody would say banning companies from creating a nuclear powered oven was 'holding back innovation'. If anything forcing us to re-envision human transportation without integrating into legacy requirements advances innovation more than just trying to use AI to solve the problems created by using humans to solve the original problem of how to move humans around in cars.

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

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.

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.

I’m sorry for being pendantic, but it’s Koch brothers. They really are the worst of the bunch; although, Elon be trying hard these days.

What’s wrong with Gates, though?

Then why have I been forced to do all those ReCaptchas?

Permanently Deleted

If you've watched any of their recent AI talks, they talk a lot about these unusual and complex intersections. Lane mappings in complexe intersections being one of the hardest problems. Currently they're taking data from numerous cars to reconstruct intersections like this to then turn into a simulation and train it so it learns more and more complex things.

There really are only 2 options.

Solve this with vision and AI, or solve this with HD maps.

But it has to be solved.

If it sees red and green, it should take the safe option and stop until it is sure or the driver takes over.

Permanently Deleted

if decision.confidence < CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD:
    wheel.give_to(JESUS)

Oh I definitely get it - doesn't matter how you think it's marketed. Only an idiot would think it could completely drive independent of human input.

Yet the software disengages if it detects that you are not paying attention. So in reality, when it's engaged there are actually TWO drivers. How can anyone argue that's less safe than ONE driver?

But for legit, do you have information to refute what I said?