From recent headlines, it sounds like people are protesting the fact their city is being used as an alpha testing site and causing a nuisance.
I don't think its necessarily in protest of the technology in general, but the irresponsible way these things are let loose on the road without a person there to get it out of the way when it gridlocks.
Its an issue that can be solved by spending relatively little money on a test driver's salary that they're purposefully avoiding to save money and avoid responsibility.
Seems like you are pointing out one obvious challenge to any company that wants to develope such technology.
Maybe it is my european upbringing, but this is not my problem, but the problem of said company. I don't see why they should be allowed to test on public streets.
The real problem here is not that the tech is imperfect, I'd actually expect it to be imperfect given it's not been even a decade for this tech. The real problem is that this imperfect tech is on public roads. How do they even get the permission to test drive on public roads?
In addition to the fact that we shouldn't be testing this stuff on public roads, it's baffling to me that anyone wants to use this in it's current state. To me this seems so much more stressful than driving the car myself. Having to maintain constant vigilance of what's going on around me as with normal driving, but with the additional complexity of having to keep second guessing what that car is going to do about it as well seems so much worse to me than just driving the car.
It's really strange to me, that we allow this sort of beta testing on public roads. The car is doing multiple things in this video that is problematic with the driver being slow to react in order to see what it ends up doing.
This should not be something that is allowed on public roads by end-users, but rather on closed tracks by specialists. If they want to test it out on public roads, run the analysis and look at whenever it diverges from the drivers decisionmaking instead.
The public, tech literate or not, shouldn't be test driving software with real world consequences on public roads. T$LA should issue a couple of shares per citizen if it wants to buy some of our roads. Or gtfo
Weird, unexpected things happen on the road every day. Are we seriously going to potentially risk gridlocking a city (not to mention our personal safety) for the gains of a small handful of private corporation as they test this black-box tech out against us?
I'm not sure that really jives with the statement in the article and really just boils down to "people can test what they want just don't drive then" and I don't think that is workable.
Still not sure how they get away with beta testing safety features on public roads. Or, how drivers who choose to participate get to decide for the rest of us that we must participate too.
The idea that you're going to give a vehicle complete control, but constantly monitor for errors and make a split second decision to manually correct is flawed. As long as this is required, the feature shouldn't be allowed on public roads.
Attempts to prohibit repairing things is stupid and it is stupid on regulators part to not seeing it progresses.
But allowing live-testing auto-drive technology on public roads is beyound that. Police should just pull over anyone who turn this on and is on the move and revoke driver driving license. Simple as that.
"Oh, but it works for me..." is not how public security standards are created.
Sure. Close down the road, get a bunch of professional drivers to simulate traffic (including poor driving), and have it at for a few hundreds of thousands of miles.
Let's be clear, this was not a "road test". This was a publicity stunt.
And I don't have a problem with you ranting, at least you made an effort to share your view.
Well, test configurations on Twitter are one thing. Test configurations on the public roadways make everyone around the vehicle an unwilling participant in that testing configuration.
Having a testing configuration doesn’t strike me as a problem, but it seems like it would be very important that the testing configuration be managed very carefully, and only applied to the appropriate vehicles that are intended to be operated under testing conditions.
It is simple: Tech companies are allowed to test their systems on public roads because the communities/states have given them permission to do so(with restrictions like roads allowable, max/min speed allowable, safety driver present behind wheel, etc).
It still makes sense to have a test. We put every citizen through a driving test. Those are gamed too, but at least they learned a lot of basics... and they are probably better drivers than people not required to take a test. After that, market forces will hopefully go the rest of the mile.
I mean heck, this latest incident wouldn't have passed the original Darpa challenge that got us here.
I agree with everything you said. I do hope that eventually the tech gets to the point where it can take over full time. We recently took a road trip for our vacation and the amount of road rage we witnessed was ... mind boggling. Don't get me wrong, not everyone is a raging asshole, but there were enough to make me wonder just why so many people are so freaking angry.
It’s definitely easier to solve, but who’s going to foot the bill for this stuff? The whole problem is that road conditions conditions are variable. A lot of the time a Tesla FSD system makes a bad decision, that decision would be possible for a human to make. Sure, it’s not probable all the time, but it’s not outside of the realm of possibility.
You can always decrease the odds of something bad happening with better road design (and better viability), better lane markings, better signs, etc. This would work for both FSD systems and humans. Yet, terribly unmaintained roads are the norm for a lot of people who are just “used to it.” If you create an FSD zone and outfit it with tons of sensors, why not just fix the road design problems that would benefit humans too?
Disagree. If you screen your test drivers, you no longer have adequate testing. Your test drivers need to be representative (as much as possible) of the general population.
I don't think its necessarily in protest of the technology in general, but the irresponsible way these things are let loose on the road without a person there to get it out of the way when it gridlocks.
Its an issue that can be solved by spending relatively little money on a test driver's salary that they're purposefully avoiding to save money and avoid responsibility.
reply