Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
“It was a single vehicle
“It was a single vehicle collision, a car collided with a tree.”
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/car-smashes-tree-yate-police-7194332
Car makers should be obliged to open-source the control software for self-driving cars anyway, and offer a hefty bounty for bugs, so knowledgeable people can check it for errors.This is an industry that’s demonstrated over and over again that it can’t be trusted, yet people think it’ll manage to create safe autonomous vehicles. Pardon the hollow laughter.
I can’t see that politicians would have much sway over the car industries, so I can’t see that happening. They’re more likely to offer driving-as-a-service (that way they could even use GPL software without having to reveal their changes):
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s where the money is so I don’t think level 5 autonomy will ever exist as there’s simply no profit to be made in developing it.This is why I hope that some day we’ll have open source autonomous driving software powering (public) vehicles. Open source has the ability to go beyond just the economic needs of the vehicle manufacturers.
I think you’re making
I think you’re making assumptions about how autonomous systems can be made to work. It’s entirely possible to have AI systems within a framework of rules and they can be programmed to slow down and stop if a situation strays out of known parameters.
The Elaine Herzberg case shows the major problem of having systems that rely on the driver being constantly alert and ready in case the system suddenly decides that it doesn’t know what’s going on. I believe the safety system was also disengaged as they had problems with phantom stopping, but that’s an implementation issue they had rather than a problem with all autonomous systems.
Because driving in current conditions requires theory of mind to predict what the other idiots on the road are going to do.
I don’t see why that’s the case. By following current trajectories, it’s easy enough to extrapolate and anticipate possible collisions. It’s similar to how a dog can catch a ball without needing to know about air resistance and gravity. Also, that implies that all drivers are mindful which I think we can find enough evidence to disprove.
I think Tesla are approaching it from entirely the wrong direction by having a fast car and then gradually adding self-driving features to it. It makes more sense to have slow moving autonomous vehicles (without any driver assistance) and learn about their failure modes before then grappling with the extra problems from travelling at speed.
It’s like teaching a learner driver – you don’t go full speed and then hand the controls over to a learner.
And never will, full self-driving being a techno-utopian fantasy that requires strong AI.The only difference between Musk and Holmes is therefore the degree of deception in the grift.
Self driving certainly seems like a tough problem, but I don’t see why it would require “strong AI” (presumably human-level general intelligence). Certainly, there’s plenty of creatures with much smaller brains than us that can navigate perfectly well (e.g. a squirrel finding their way through a maze).
To my mind, the big problem with Tesla’s AI is that they’re just using video cameras and trying to identify everything visually which as CAPTCHAs demonstrate is something we haven’t solved with computers yet. Fitting LIDAR, although expensive, gives much better 3D information about the surroundings.
I’m still holding out for flying cars though – I’m sure we were promised that as kids.
On page 41 of the report,
On page 41 of the report, where the 172% figure comes from, it clearly states “Traffic counts” (although that’s listed under the “assessment period” heading which appears wrong). In contrast, the Enfield study was produced from longitudinal resident surveys.
You did imply strongly that the Garudnia was misrepresenting when you stated “I dont think the think tank report is half as positive about LTNs as the Guardian claims”. However, I do agree that they (Graduian journalists) don’t do in depth fact checking as that doesn’t seem to be a major factor in modern journalism, but I’m not aware of instances where they just make stuff up like certain other news organisations.
I think your issue is more with the Centre for London Think-tank than the Gnarduia
That still only gives percentages, though. We don’t know whether that 172% increase is from 1000 trips to 2720, or from 18 trips to 49 (which could be much more affected by statistical variability).I’d expect the raw figures should be available from the council
The report (https://www
The report (https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CFL-StreetShift-LTNs-Final.pdf) gets the 172% figure from traffic counts from https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/ltns/
It doesn’t look to me as though the Gradnuia is mis-representing the report at all.
Didn’t see a link in that
Didn’t see a link in that article to LA’s crosswalk collective: https://crosswalksla.org/
I don’t usually bother trying
I don’t usually bother trying to bypass paywalls, but it’s easy enough to get to their article. It’s got an interesting bit about how Copenhagen initially had LTN issues back in the 80s
https://www.ft.com/content/2a1c7d1f-d012-4679-b413-f9a19a110471
I wonder if this will get
I wonder if this will get picked up by other news organisations.
Saw that FT covered it a week ago, but it’s paywalled.
Woman pleads guilty to harassment after covering car in underwear“She proceeded to send pictures of the affected car to its owner and his family.”
Tom Jones was playing the Salisbury Guildhall at the time. No buildings harmed, but a worthy addition to the list of reasons why a driver couldn’t possibly have avoided a hazard.
Might lead to a brief loss of attention
You can’t park that there,
You can’t park that there, mate!
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/brislington-traffic-live-lorry-ripped-7180974
If its a decent API implementation there is no proprietary information to leak, apart from the specs themselves which have already left the stable…..That’s true for public, documented APIs, but not necessarily true for private APIs. I seem to remember Microsoft used to (still does?) make use of private APIs for its own software and force other software manufacturers to use their more limited public APIs. (There’s also the whole shenanigans between Google and Oracle about whether APIs can be copyrighted and/or patented).
However, I suspect that this case is more of a case of needing a licence/agreement to use the API and Shimano are cancelling that. It makes me wonder what would happen if a 3rd party reverse engineered the protocol/API and then sold products based on that – would Shimano try to sue them?