This, at least, can likely be remedied fleet-wide and permanently with a software fix.
Oh? That seems like a pretty big assumption. Even if the company themselves said that a software update could fix running over a living creature, I would be skeptical.
These people are just looking for an excuse to rail against automation
Excuse or valid criticism from a negatively affected community? I personally don’t like the idea of driverless cars. I don’t think they are at all necessary to society. I don’t see them as inevitable infrastructure or even a good path forward. I don’t think my stance is unreasonable.
as if a human driver would have definitely seen the cat.
There are plenty of cats in my neighborhood and I’ve never hit one. I’d expect an automated vehicle to drive better than a human, not worse.
You talk about people “railing against automation” but is it more productive to make reflexive excuses for its failures? The fact of the matter (IMO) is that we shouldn’t be beta test subjects for these companies and this new technology.
Holy shit, its logical fallacy over and over with you.
I didn’t make any assumptions. If they can avoid animals now (which they can, and do), they can improve that detection and/or logic for cats that have disappeared under the car and not reappeared. That’s not even an assumption, much less a “big” one.
And you’ve never hit a cat that was hiding under your car? Are you sure? How can you prove it? Have you gotten out each time you drove away to make sure there wasn’t a cat left behind?
And you’ve driven 93m miles, so you can compare your extensive history and record of driving with waymo’s?
I personally don’t like the idea of driverless cars.
And there is your bias.
No one argues self-driving cars are “needed.” The point is, they are a significant improvement over humans when developed correctly.
And you’ve never hit a cat that was hiding under your car? Are you sure? How can you prove it? Have you gotten out each time you drove away to make sure there wasn’t a cat left behind?
I don’t find this convincing. Have you asked the Waymo Taxi the same thing? I can check if I’ve run over a cat, and I’m naturally Inclined to care. I can’t say the same about a robot. Especially one that isn’t open source.
If they can avoid animals now (which they can, and do), they can improve that detection and/or logic for cats that have disappeared under the car and not reappeared. That’s not even an assumption, much less a “big” one.
I develop software for a living. It is a big assumption to think that this will be fixed with a software update. I don’t know why you act as if it’s a sure thing.
I personally don’t like the idea of driverless cars.
And there is your bias.
Yes I am biased against driverless cars. They are a new technology that is being tested without our consent, and they are dependent on corporations rather than humans being held accountable when things go wrong (something that we currently struggle with as a society). The fact that you think I should default to the contrary is strange to me.
No one argues self-driving cars are “needed.” The point is, they are a significant improvement over humans when developed correctly.
I’d rather gravitate towards a driverless society where we invest in public transit and infrastructure rather than further ingraining cars into our society and adopting private companies (who use us as unwitting beta testers) as the solution to our problems.
How are people this fucking stupid? Really?
I don’t want you to answer that. I would need some rational and intelligent discussion on the subject.
You need to calm down. Attacking my intelligence isn’t helping your argument. I think I’m done engaging with you now.
i have been in a car that hit a cat (it was an accident) and there was a bump. it’s not like we flattened him completely. a human could probably determine there shouldn’t have been a bump based on the state of the surface they’re driving on. i’m not terribly familiar with the limitations of their software, but i’d think it lacks the “experience” to tell that kind of thing.
Oh? That seems like a pretty big assumption. Even if the company themselves said that a software update could fix running over a living creature, I would be skeptical.
Excuse or valid criticism from a negatively affected community? I personally don’t like the idea of driverless cars. I don’t think they are at all necessary to society. I don’t see them as inevitable infrastructure or even a good path forward. I don’t think my stance is unreasonable.
There are plenty of cats in my neighborhood and I’ve never hit one. I’d expect an automated vehicle to drive better than a human, not worse.
You talk about people “railing against automation” but is it more productive to make reflexive excuses for its failures? The fact of the matter (IMO) is that we shouldn’t be beta test subjects for these companies and this new technology.
This I can agree with.
Holy shit, its logical fallacy over and over with you.
I didn’t make any assumptions. If they can avoid animals now (which they can, and do), they can improve that detection and/or logic for cats that have disappeared under the car and not reappeared. That’s not even an assumption, much less a “big” one.
And you’ve never hit a cat that was hiding under your car? Are you sure? How can you prove it? Have you gotten out each time you drove away to make sure there wasn’t a cat left behind?
And you’ve driven 93m miles, so you can compare your extensive history and record of driving with waymo’s?
And there is your bias.
No one argues self-driving cars are “needed.” The point is, they are a significant improvement over humans when developed correctly.
I don’t find this convincing. Have you asked the Waymo Taxi the same thing? I can check if I’ve run over a cat, and I’m naturally Inclined to care. I can’t say the same about a robot. Especially one that isn’t open source.
I develop software for a living. It is a big assumption to think that this will be fixed with a software update. I don’t know why you act as if it’s a sure thing.
Yes I am biased against driverless cars. They are a new technology that is being tested without our consent, and they are dependent on corporations rather than humans being held accountable when things go wrong (something that we currently struggle with as a society). The fact that you think I should default to the contrary is strange to me.
I’d rather gravitate towards a driverless society where we invest in public transit and infrastructure rather than further ingraining cars into our society and adopting private companies (who use us as unwitting beta testers) as the solution to our problems.
You need to calm down. Attacking my intelligence isn’t helping your argument. I think I’m done engaging with you now.
i have been in a car that hit a cat (it was an accident) and there was a bump. it’s not like we flattened him completely. a human could probably determine there shouldn’t have been a bump based on the state of the surface they’re driving on. i’m not terribly familiar with the limitations of their software, but i’d think it lacks the “experience” to tell that kind of thing.