/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9604342]

>We're gonna program away your Uber driving jo-
lol, nerds BTFO again. Self-driving cars will never happen and I will make money driving Uber for the rest of my life.
Meanwhile you programmer geniuses can look forward to getting replaced by cheaper labor from India. Funny how that all worked out.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-suspends-driverless-car-program-after-pedestrian-is-struck-and-killed-1521480386

[Anonymous No.9604354]

There was a human safety monitor behind the wheel and not even that person caught her in time to stop the car. She probably would have been hit even if the car wasn't self driving.

[Anonymous No.9604514]

>>9604342
Self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to achieve a better safety record than humans.

[Anonymous No.9604557]

>>9604514
Wrong. When a person gets in an accident it's just his problem. When a self-driving car gets in an accident it's the entire industry's problem.

[Anonymous No.9604562]

>>9604557
Some people, especially low IQ roastie pedestrians, need to die as collateral for technology to improve.

[Anonymous No.9604563]

>>9604342
Drivers are often not at fault when pedestrians are struck so I'm not going to rush to judgment on this

[Anonymous No.9604572]

>>9604562
I'm okay with this.

[Anonymous No.9604576]

>>9604563
this is not true. as the driver you carry the full responsibility. a 3 year old kid could suddenly jump on the road and it would be up to you to brake. if the computer cant do that, it's out.

[Anonymous No.9604578]

>>9604354
>She probably would have been hit even if the car wasn't self driving.
Brainlets don't get it

[Anonymous No.9604579]

>>9604342
IT'S OVER.

[Anonymous No.9604588]

>>9604576
>as the driver you carry the full responsibility
false
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/auto-accident/pedestrian-fault-car-accident.html
you should be ashamed of yourself. you have access to the most advanced information retrieval system and you're still posting bullshit. just fucking stop.

[Anonymous No.9604594]

>>9604342
it's not if it's when.

[Anonymous No.9604602]

>>9604588
that's not what I learnt in driving school. sorry. maybe it's because the laws in my cunt are different that yours.
a car has a built-in operating risk to the disadvantage of the driver. if you are not prepared to brake constantly, and if you can't brake in this situation, it is your fault.

[Anonymous No.9604639]

>>9604572
Well, that's historically been the only way for unproven technologies to be developed to their full potential. When the British were just beginning to industrialize, they didn't spontaneously delay the industrial revolution every time someone died in a coal mine or factory.

[Anonymous No.9604652]

>>9604354
The Uber cars have a record of running red lights and other violations. The human "safety monitors" are clearly incapable of doing their fucking job.

[Anonymous No.9604683]

>>9604602
There isn't anybody in the world who could brake in time in the situation in that picture. He's too close and your reaction time is nonzero. If you are not already braking in that picture because you saw the kid coming, it's too late.

[Anonymous No.9604721]

>>9604588
>All that autism

>>9604602
>that's not what I learnt in driving school.
They tell you this so you'll take extra precautions to avoid accidents in the first place, because there are brainlets who would just drive carelessly, figuring they can just blame whoever they hit. It's not the reality.

[Anonymous No.9604733]

>>9604342
>I will make money driving Uber for the rest of my life.
lel you dont. stop lying to yourself. at best you break even

[Anonymous No.9605312]

and there have been 10 other deadly crashes caused by non driverless cars. that makes the driverless car still safer.

if overnight all cars would be replaced by driverless cars, which are able to communicate traffic situations and their own position wirelessly with each other, you would not even traffic lights anymore. pedestrians have to get away from the roads ffs. we would see a 95% decrease in accidents and deaths. the rest are within technical difficulties, you can always have a freak brake failure or steering servo failure

[Anonymous No.9605478]

>>9604683
I could. I drive VERY carefully.

[Anonymous No.9605515]

This thread is cancer

[Anonymous No.9605518]

>>9604602
That kid deserves to die.

[Anonymous No.9605548]

>>9605312
>we would see a 95% decrease in accidents and deaths.
And a 10 000% spike in remote sabotage of vehicles resulting in deaths of prominent industry leaders and politicians.

[Anonymous No.9605559]

>>9605518
you will never have kids.

[Anonymous No.9605561]

>>9604683
>There isn't anybody in the world who could brake in time in the situation in that picture. He's too close and your reaction time is nonzero. If you are not already braking in that picture because you saw the kid coming, it's too late.

Sure you could - if you're driving 10 mph, as you should be doing if you're going through a zone with blind angles and kids playing.

[Anonymous No.9605571]

>>9604562
This minus the /pol/ rhetoric. For innovation to take place, a certain percentage of people will have to for it with their suffering.

[Anonymous No.9605576]

>Uber's Advanced Technologies Group was trying to hire me last month
>didn't end up working there
Really dodged a bullet on that one.

[Anonymous No.9605583]

>>9605561
>if you're driving 10 mph
and this should be the max speed allowed for all driverless cars

[Anonymous No.9605589]

>>9604342
>I will make money driving Uber for the rest of my life.
I am so, so sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.9605620]

>>9604576
A driver should do everything within his power to not cause fatalities.
That is not the same as attributing fault to the driver if a fatality occurs. There are rules to road usage that apply to everyone, even pedestrians, which are designed to prevent accidents and that includes not walking out into traffic.

[Anonymous No.9605621]

>>9604342
Normies don't know that neural networks are just automated guesswork. Basically a compromise to get a function that works well-enough. We don't have algorithms for stuff like object recognition, which is why neural networks are being used, but since all they do is try to come up with parameters that can best map input with output in training data, they can never achieve perfect results.
The media over-hyped AI way too much. Only reason why grads with PhDs in AI related stuff are getting jobs nowadays is because Google wants them for its autistic 'Brain' project.

[Anonymous No.9605629]

>>9604602
Congratulations, you were taught defensive driving.
You are probably a better driver than 70% of the rest of the driving population, but rules are the rules.

>>9605561
Part of that assumes you can see kids playing.
What you were probably taught was constant risk identification.
Slowing down where kids are likely to be around, like schools or parks, is admirable but you cant do all your driving at 10mph because there's a wheelie bin that could have a child behind it.

[Anonymous No.9605645]

>>9604342
that dumb bitch crossed without a crosswalk and didn't even check for cars, she basically jumped in front of a speeding car, good that she died, one less moron to worry about

and for the retards in this thread saying the driver always has full responsibility, i fucking hope you get to experience some moron hiding behind a parked car and jumping in front of you right as you drive past

[Anonymous No.9606902]

>>9605620
it's your job as a driver to take into account that situations might arise where other people wont stick to those rules and even in that case you are still obliged to protect them
you have to make sure your style of driving gives you the ability to do so even if the rules are on your side. even with a green light, you are supposed to drive carefully and not to accelerate mindlessly.

[Anonymous No.9606904]

>>9605645
all the women do that everywhere, it's your job as a driver to know that even before they know that.

[Anonymous No.9607106]

>>9606902
Yeah, that's part of what I said.

[Anonymous No.9607141]

>>9607106
yes, but you did not make it clear enough.

the algorithm did not brake for her, the algorithm did not drive foresightful, the algorithm killed her.

[Anonymous No.9607263]

>>9604562
or low IQ roasties can just not be allowed to drive, and then we wouldn't need remotely operated pods to take away our freedom to drive ourselves

>>9604576
>implying if a condition arises close enough that the max static friction of the tires couldn't even allow the car to stop in time, then it's still the car/driver's fault
literally wrong

>>9605312
if we had a strict driving test and didn't let chucklefucks drive we wouldn't have these problems either. retards need to learn to walk or take the bus

[Anonymous No.9607273]

>>9605571
that's /r9k/ rhetoric

[Anonymous No.9607294]

>>9607141
But again, it may not have been possible for a human driver to have seen this person before they stepped out, it may not have been possible for a human driver to react to this person stepping out and a pedestrian has a responsibility to check the road before stepping out.

So you cannot just attribute all fault to the algorithm.

[Anonymous No.9607859]

>>9607263
>>9607294

as the driver you have to make sure that even a pedestrian who doesn't check the road stays safe and drive accordingly slow and careful, to minimize that exact risk that physics of the car, speed, and road type, as well as neurobiology of your eye-brain-movement-connnections still pose

[Anonymous No.9607889]

Uber + Waymo: 10 fatalities per 100 million miles.
Humans: 1.16 fatalities per 100 million miles.

[Anonymous No.9607952]

>>9607889
Haven't Uber + Waymo only done like 10 million miles?

[Anonymous No.9607980]

>>9607952
With one fatality.

[Anonymous No.9608010]

--Score--
People who go outside: 10000000
People who never leave the house: 1

[Anonymous No.9608054]

>>9607859
are you retarded

[Anonymous No.9608104]

>>9604683
It's all about speed the car is going in that picture
Your statement is false without more information

[Anonymous No.9608106]

>>9604342
yeah whatever dipshit

[Anonymous No.9608202]

>>9604342
did you actually come on /sci/ to brag about being an uber driver?

[Anonymous No.9608223]

>>9604514
Oh but anon you just don't get it. human beings are totally fucking stupid. We do not understand proportion. The USA right now is consumed by a huge debate about mass school shootings, a problem that is dwarfed into insignificance by the number of our young people dying of obesity or getting into car accidents or of drug abuse. Even though the piles of dead bodies and number of grieving families are much bigger, the stories aren't SEXY! It has no villain that we can directly confront! It lacks drama! "We should punish parents that let their kids get obese by treating it as child abuse" is UGLY and JUDGEMENTAL and it will make parents who have fat kids feel baaaaaaaaad and the kids will feel baaaaaaaad so who cares that they have heart attacks and die at 22 and cost us billions of dollars to treat for their diabetes,and even though by dealing with it we could save a hundred times more people than by freaking out about school shootings. and now one sad death, the same type of death that happens all the time with human drivers, that kills tens of thousands of people each year, is being treated as some great derailing event for this tech, this tech that could EVEN IN ITS EARLY FORM prevent thousands of deaths a year of driver incompetence, because it's new and scary and dramatic.

[Anonymous No.9608299]

>>9608054
you seem a bit retarded

[Anonymous No.9608823]

>>9604514
Not really.
Humans will only accept self driving cars if they are perfect, despite them having a lower accident rate than manual driving. It's sensationalist.

[Anonymous No.9609640]

>>9607859
you're telling me that just because someone can hide behind a parked truck on the side of a 35mph street, or hide behind a concrete divider on a 75mph freeway and decide to jump out literally right in front of my car--just because this is a possibility and muh I need to be responsible for ALL pedestrians I need to limit my speed accordingly.

you want me to do less than 5mph anywhere but the middle of a salt flat, you moron. you want to do 5mph in the middle of a freeway. you want to do 50 or more under the limit. fucking kill yourself. at that point it doesn't even matter whether or not the car is automated. you seem like an assmad numale, so you'll be glad to know I regularly do 50 mph OVER the speed limit, not under :^)

>>9608054
most likely

[Anonymous No.9609645]

>>9609640
>you want me to do less than 5mph anywhere but the middle of a salt flat, you moron. you want to do 5mph in the middle of a freeway. you want to do 50 or more under the limit. fucking kill yourself. at that point it doesn't even matter whether or not the car is automated. you seem like an assmad numale, so you'll be glad to know I regularly do 50 mph OVER the speed limit, not under :^)
I don't give a shit how you drive, speeder, but I do want autonomous cars to drive like that to make 100% sure they don't kill anyone

[Anonymous No.9609672]

>>9609645
who the fuck would want an autonomous car to do 5mph everywhere? might as well walk

[Anonymous No.9609677]

>>9609672
you are too fat anyways
human drivers should be made illegal and 5 mph autonomous cars should be the only legal way to drive

[Anonymous No.9609680]

>>9605559
Ill teach them to not be low IQ brainlets and run out in the middle of the street for a fucking ball

[Anonymous No.9609682]

>>9608223
>>9608823
That's the price you have to pay for letting retards breed and prosper and become the majority in a majority rules system, fucking leftypol shitheads

[Anonymous No.9609688]

>>9609677
should've taken me less time to realize b8

[Anonymous No.9609689]

>>9604602
You should probably run into the cars on the side. Parents come out as "WTF?" and you say "Well your kid ran into the street and I couldnt stop in time, so I had no other option". Then insurance takes your side?

[Anonymous No.9609699]

>>9606904
>your job as a grown adult to take care of other grown adults

cancer mentality.

[Anonymous No.9609705]

>>9609688
that's because you drive too fast anon, you drive too fast all the time. you have to drive more slowly for that handful of retards who might run on the street in front of your car.

[Anonymous No.9609708]

>>9609699
okay enjoy killing kids with your car then

[Anonymous No.9609723]

>>9609708
I said adults, not kids you braindead moron.

[Anonymous No.9609734]

>>9609705
>too fast
maybe so but not fast enough. when I get a new car I'll go even faster, and I may get a sportbike within a few years. Probably will end up as a mile long streak of gore on the freeway at some point but whatever

[Anonymous No.9609738]

>>9609723
women, kids, old people, retards, what's the difference when it comes to car traffic

[Anonymous No.9609742]

>>9609738
kids aren't worth as many points

[Anonymous No.9609745]

>>9609742
drive faster then

[Anonymous No.9609765]

>>9609738
If an adult walks out in traffic they deserve to die. Survival of the fittest.

[Anonymous No.9610149]

>>9604652
So they aren't any better than the vehicle then.

[Anonymous No.9610167]

>>9604652
you wouldn't be either if your job was to sit there and do nothing for 400 hours. you'd eventually realize you'll never know if the car is going to do the right thing or not. and by the time you figure out its doing something wrong, then it's already too late anyway. so why not just relax and enjoy getting paid to get deep vein thrombosis.

[Anonymous No.9610168]

Uber fired half its white males for being better than its other workers and now it is a shit company on the decline. Big fucking surprise.

[Anonymous No.9610849]

>>9610168
source on this info

[Anonymous No.9610909]

>>9605576
It wasn't the driver that died though

[Anonymous No.9610972]

Footage of the accident was released
https://youtu.be/hthyTh_fopo
I cant tell if it's super dark, the camera quality is poor, or both, but there was no way that car could've stopped in time.
>>9604342

[Anonymous No.9611003]

>>9604342
>I will make money driving Uber for the rest of my life
Not if they put a decent emergency system

[Anonymous No.9611020]

>>9611003
russians are so stupid

[Anonymous No.9611023]

>>9611003
impressive

[Anonymous No.9611071]

>>9610849
http://fortune.com/2018/01/23/uber-first-chief-diversity-officer/

[Anonymous No.9611225]

>>9611071
That doesn't say what you claim it says at all

[Anonymous No.9611231]

>>9611020
No russian truck can pull that off, and no russian truckdriver is sober enough to react that quickly

[Anonymous No.9611247]

>>9610972
>there was no way that car could've stopped in time.
Are you serious? You make it sound like she ran out in front of the car.

She's basically stationary in the middle of the road, walking her bike slowly across, more than halfway across. If you can't see a person standing in the road and stop in time to avoid hitting them, you're driving too fast for the visibility conditions. This was clearly both a failure of the self-driving system and negligence of the human operator.

[Anonymous No.9611250]

>>9611225
I didn't claim anything, just saw you asking that other anon about diversity hires and figured I'd give you a link about their diversity hiring.
Not sure what you're looking for exactly. They were criticized for not having diversity, a bunch of their old leadership was removed, and they hired a "chief diversity officer whose entire job is to force diversity hires.

[Anonymous No.9611254]

>>9611250
The driver's an MTF transsexual, right? They hired an obviously mentally ill person to keep their car-sized robot from running anyone down.

[Anonymous No.9611284]

>>9611254
please don't

[Anonymous No.9611294]

>>9611284
Please don't what?

People are never just transsexual and otherwise normal. Wanting to dress up like the opposite sex and surgically mutilate your healthy genitals comes with a whole of other mental problems. The company should be liable for reckless endangerment by relying on such a person for a job requiring consistent clear-headed vigilance.

[Anonymous No.9611307]

>>9611294
please don't do what you're doing right now. If you want to bash trannies there are plenty opportunities outside of sci.

[Anonymous No.9611321]

I've killed at least three people and hurt many more. I have no legal obligation to stop when someone crosses the street illegal.

Stupid people need to go.

[Anonymous No.9611330]

On one hand I doubt any human would've seen her coming, no reflectors on bike + black clothing, passing a under bridge.

On the other hand this is no excuse for whats happened because there are sensors (orthough expensive) which could've recognized this person. Obviously they cant put a ladar, radar, an infrared sensor, an echolot and a camera in a single car, it would be to expensive.

but it means part of the reason she had to die was because a whole industry was too focused on commercialising a product.

I bet there is no risk map of accident history on geolocations implemented in the cars roadmap, partly because documentation of accidents is authorities area and I'm not sure if they are even allowed to release the data, let alone having every record in digital format.

by law its obviously the fault of the driver but the woman could've maybe avoided her death as well... still a long way from commercialising imho...

I dare to predict that before we'll have perfectly safe self-driving cars, we invent another type of vehicle. who would be with me on that one?

[Anonymous No.9611334]

>>9611321
you'd tell that story at their funeral?

[Anonymous No.9611344]

>>9611307
Fuck right off if you think /sci/ is some leftist-controlled safe space where we can't have frank discussions of mental illness and its consequences. This is relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Anonymous No.9611355]

>>9611344
It's not relevant at all though. You may state that diversity hires are fucking stupid, and I think most here would nod in agreement, but is it really necessary to stir up shit with the typical 89 IQ rhetoric? And you can also stop acting as if your right of free speech is infringed just because you're asked to tone it down a little, it's not like anyone here is gonna stop you...

[Anonymous No.9611371]

So you're saying that: I won't be allowed to buy a self driving van and comfily sleep whilst journeying and/or automate a delivery business and unemploy several hundred thousand delivery drivers one day?

[Anonymous No.9611385]

>>9611355
>you can also stop acting as if your right of free speech is infringed just because you're asked to tone it down a little
You literally just told me not to bring this subject up at all.

See, this is how scumbag leftists work: you pretend that your political positions aren't political at all, they're just "being nice" or "obvious truth" or "only decent". If I bring up the well-established link between identifying as the opposite sex and other forms of mental illness, it's "typical 89 IQ rhetoric" and if I "can also stop acting as if your right of free speech is infringed" when I'm told not to mention it here.

People trusted a tranny in a job where that fact strongly indicated against his psychological suitability for performing a safety-critical function, and now an innocent woman is dead. That's bigger than your feelings, and so is freedom of speech.

[Anonymous No.9611393]

>>9611385
what I asked you to was taking the tranny-bashing somewhere else, nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't look like it had much effect though...

[Anonymous No.9611420]

>>9611393
You people are complicit in these deaths. When you try to stop people from openly discussing harms and risks, you interfere with the understanding of how to minimize them, and inevitably, more risk is accepted and more harm results.

Some share of this woman's blood is on your hands, little murderer.

[Anonymous No.9611432]

>>9611371
Theres still always the 'last 10 feet' problem, where no matter what you try, you end up needing a human to do some non-automatable task at the terminals. the result would be some loss of jobs, but is mainly an dumbing down of existing jobs.

[Anonymous No.9611451]

>>9611420
>Some share of this woman's blood is on your hands, little murderer.

[Anonymous No.9611472]

>>9611432
>non-automatable task
No such thing desu. The "last 10 feet" thing is more about complacence than actual limits to technology. When you solved most of a problem and the part you didn't solve is relatively unimportant and more hassle than it seems worth it to address, a lot of companies will just ignore it instead of pushing the issue. I can say for sure the vast majority of automation opportunities already doable today are not being taken advantage of by businesses. You'd think the invisible hand would make businesses all operate at maximum efficiency, but there's a bias towards keeping what works that you already have going.

[Anonymous No.9611476]

>>9611420
Dumb bitch jumped in front of a speeding car, without a crosswalk and without checking the road.
I fucking hope every single moron like that dies, humanity will be much better off.

[Anonymous No.9611505]

>>9611476
Have you seen the video? She didn't jump in front of a speeding car, she walked her bike slowly across the road, and was nearly stationary on the road when hit, equivalent to someone standing in the road.
https://youtu.be/hthyTh_fopo

If you can't see and stop for someone standing in the road, you're driving too fast for the visibility conditions. On top of that, the driver was looking away from the road for extended periods. Even if you're doing something like changing the radio station, you only ever glance away from the road momentarily. Keeping your eyes on the road is one of the most basic requirements of safe driving.

Crossing the road at a random place is risky, but the odds of any one car hitting you should be fairly low.

[Anonymous No.9611532]

>>9611505
any human driver would have also hit her, she's a complete retard, she could see the car's headlights from far away but still decided to cross the road in complete darkness in front of it, without a crosswalk

[Anonymous No.9611537]

>>9611247
this better be bait

[Anonymous No.9611541]

>>9611321
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

[Anonymous No.9611542]

>not even a skilled human would be able to stop in time
kek machines should be able to see in the dark fuckheads

[Anonymous No.9611550]

>>9611532
>any human driver would have also hit her
A human driver did hit her. That's what makes "self-driving" cars legal while the technology is under development and not certified as a qualified driver on its own: the human behind the wheel who is able to take control at any moment and is responsible for any accidents that occur. It's important to remember that a self-driving car accident means that both the self-driving system and the human driver failed. These systems haven't been driving perfectly, rather the humans have been paying proper attention and taking the wheel when necessary. The video shows that this driver wasn't.

And no, most human drivers won't hit a person standing in an empty road on a clear night. Most drive at a safe speed for the conditions, where they can see and stop if something as large as a person standing upright is stationary on the road in front of them. This is a basic requirement of safe driving. Not only people, but animals, stopped cars, large debris, or big holes can be in the road, and hitting any of those can kill you.

[Anonymous No.9611551]

>>9604342
>look forward to getting replaced by cheaper labor from India

Or a sentient AI which can improve itself further.

[Anonymous No.9611555]

>>9611550
Please don't reply to this bait guy faggoy

[Anonymous No.9611557]

>>9611472
nah, i think you underestimate how incredibly brittle automation is. as long as everything is highly predictable, then it's fine, but things will be highly unpredictable at certain points along the process, so unless we literally have star trek level androids, humans will have to fill in the gaps with their own flexibility.

[Anonymous No.9611561]

>>9611472
>I can say for sure the vast majority of automation opportunities already doable today are not being taken advantage of by businesses.
They aren't being taken advantage of because they're fucking impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXLqImT1wE

[Anonymous No.9611694]

>>9611561
They're definitely possible, I develop automated processes for a living. And like I said, most businesses have a shit ton of opportunity for automation and just haven't bothered to explore it because what they already have works well enough and because they have more immediately important topics to focus on.

[Anonymous No.9611705]

>>9611557
>flexibility
Modern ML is flexible. That's why anyone can even try to do self-driving cars. Honestly if a program can handle driving then the options we have today are pretty fucking flexible. Even a number of human autists aren't flexible enough to drive.

[Anonymous No.9611737]

>>9611705
developing a self driving car isn't the easiest thing, but the output of that ML strategy is exceedingly simple. gas, steer, brake. so you figure out how to produce that output well enough, and now it doesn't translate to any other type of task. the terminal tasks, again, tend to be exceedingly complex. do you really think we are so close to being able to manipulate the world with human-like capability?

[Anonymous No.9611795]

>>9604342

I really don't know why Uber was trying to do it right now. Should have thoroughly tested it and waited until better technology came out. Even Tesla isn't stupid enough to go full automation. Self-driving cars are still thirty years away at the earliest.

[Anonymous No.9611802]

>>9611505

That's why there's cross walks and bicycle flash lights. This is the fault of the damn idiot who got killed.

[Anonymous No.9611807]

>>9611371

Yes, but not for another 30-50 years.

[Anonymous No.9611822]

>>9609765
>le edgy never-commits-and-never-forgives-a-mistake

[Anonymous No.9611827]

that car seems to drive without upper beam headlights, also it's exceeding the limit (this is mentioned), and it's driving too fast for the visibility conditions (you have to drive slower in the night). and since she's not wearing any reflective clothing or so and her bike doesnt have reflectors, doesn't the car have sensors ro something?

[Anonymous No.9611847]

>>9611802
Obviously the woman walking across the road without paying attention to her surroundings was at fault, but that doesn't mean the self-driving function was performing adequately or the human behind the wheel was paying sufficient attention.

[Anonymous No.9611868]

>>9611827
supposedly had lidar and radar which should've detected the pedestrian, esp with not much else around

[Anonymous No.9611931]

>>9611737
>now it doesn't translate to any other type of task
The whole point of ML is it's generalized to any kinds of tasks. You don't need to explicitly program rules for how tasks are accomplished. If you have a known data set then you can train it on that known data set and it will learn from experience. Most of these programs just stick to one task because they don't need to do any other tasks, not because there's a limitation to accomplishing other tasks.

[Anonymous No.9611948]

>>9604514
>Single companies get sued by thousands of people everyday for millions of dollars
Thats sustainable...

[Anonymous No.9611965]

>>9611948
I agree that eliminating the concept of lawsuits would be a great boon for mankind by any reasonable standard.

[Anonymous No.9611997]

>>9611868
It's looking more and more like Uber's system is incompetent and they're running a public beta test of it.

[Anonymous No.9612004]

>>9611965
>our defective car killed your husband but here is a $20 gift card for Walmart lol sorry XD

[Anonymous No.9612052]

>>9611822
>Occasionally a mistake in-and-of itself.

[Anonymous No.9612056]

>stupid old bicyclist walks out into middle of road

for fuck's sake

[Anonymous No.9612103]

>>9604342

[Anonymous No.9612106]

>>9604639
Actually they did, and that's exactly why today's society is not functionally different.

[Anonymous No.9612112]

>>9612004
Instead of lawsuits you could have people taking personal responsibility and protecting themselves.

[Anonymous No.9612117]

>>9608223
It'$ all about control, power.

[Anonymous No.9612280]

>>9611505
>noone should ever drive above 20 mph at night

retard
how about the retarded woman crosses at the light or just doesn't walk in front of a car?

[Anonymous No.9612302]

>>9612280
Those are good points too, but there'a still fault to attribute to both sides here.
The car was going too fast for the range its headlights illuminated, the driver wasn't paying attention, the pedestrian was crossing at a dumb place and the autonomous system didn't detect the pedestrian.

[Anonymous No.9612306]

>>9612302
What speed was the car going?

[Anonymous No.9612369]

>>9612306
40mph

[Anonymous No.9612400]

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4365382,-111.943118,3a,24.9y,96.94h,87.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3lYftPc3_ADoL8lRklz9Mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
isn't this the place where the accident happen? there's literally a sign telling you not to cross the street there