Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc

cnocbui · 31-12-2018 11:28am

That's so reassuring given their 'we know better than you, Mr stupid pilot' software just killed 189 people.

How does an autonomous system even know of, let alone decide on, whether to divert to a nearby airport due to an on-board medical emergency?

It might happen for an air taxi as mentioned in the article, but even that I doubt very much. I usually avoid absolutes like saying 'never', but this is one case where I think never would apply to autonomous commercial flights carrying large numbers of passengers.

Twenty Grand · 31-12-2018 1:57pm

cnocbui wrote: »

That's so reassuring given their 'we know better than you, Mr stupid pilot' software just killed 189 people.
.

You might want to call air crash invesigates with your information because theres no evidence so far of a software fault.
Last report is that it was a faulty sensor that gave incorrect information, to pilots who were inadequatly trained.

cnocbui · 31-12-2018 2:28pm

Twenty Grand wrote: »

You might want to call air crash invesigates with your information because theres no evidence so far of a software fault.
Last report is that it was a faulty sensor that gave incorrect information, to pilots who were inadequatly trained.

And you might want to stow your ill informed sarcasm. There is a desperate attempt on the part of Boeing to paint this as a maintainance failure by the airline because of the damages they are potentially facing, not to mention the reputational and considerable potential sales damage, which is likely in the many hundreds of millions.

The sensor looks to have mis-reported the planes angle of attack, causing the computers to suddenly and severely nose the plane down in order to prevent the imminent stall it thought was about to occur due to the wrong angle of attack being reported by the sensor.

If the sensor fails to send correct information, it can confuse both the plane's computer and its pilots, causing an aircraft to take a sudden dive.

And from the moment they retracted the wing flaps at about 3,000 feet, the two pilots struggled -- in a 10-minute tug of war -- against a new anti-stall flight-control system that relentlessly pushed the jet's nose down 26 times before they lost control.

Though the pilots responded to each nose-down movement by pulling the nose up again, mysteriously they didn't do what the pilots on the previous day's flight had done: simply switched off that flight-control system.

So, in the absence of human pilots trying to override the computer, a completely AI system, given the malfunctioning sensor, would have driven the plane into the ground on the first of the 26 nose downs.

There appears to have been pilot error in not disengaging the autopilot after it originally malfunctioned, but perhaps there is some reason they didn't/couldn't that will emerege.

Twenty Grand · 31-12-2018 2:55pm

cnocbui wrote: »

And you might want to stow your ill informed sarcasm. There is a desperate attempt on the part of Boeing to paint this as a maintainance failure by the airline because of the damages they are potentially facing, not to mention the reputational and considerable potential sales damage, which is likely in the many hundreds of millions.

There appears to have been pilot error in not disengaging the autopilot after it originally malfunctioned, but perhaps there is some reason they didn't/couldn't that will emerege.

My sarcasm is pointing out the incredible jumps to conclusions you're making based on the scant evidence available.

If I had to put money on it, I'd place the blame on the aircraft mechanics who fitted the sensor, as the plane also had malfuncting airspeed sensors on previous flights that were not fixed for some reason.

Time will tell anyways.

cnocbui · 31-12-2018 4:03pm

Twenty Grand wrote: »

My sarcasm is pointing out the incredible jumps to conclusions you're making based on the scant evidence available.

If I had to put money on it, I'd place the blame on the aircraft mechanics who fitted the sensor, as the plane also had malfuncting airspeed sensors on previous flights that were not fixed for some reason.

Time will tell anyways.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, I am going on a commercial aviation oriented sites reporting of what the flight data recorders revealed. These are facts, not conjecture. I even provided a direct quote, which seems to have slipped your attention: https://www.aviationpros.com/news/12437907/lion-air-pilots-struggled-against-boeings-737-max-flight-control-system-black-box-data-shows

The relevant issue here is that an AI flight control system relies wholly on what the various flight attitude sensors report to it. in this case it's response was to kill 189 people. The humans pilots were fighting the system to counteract it's complete failure. Had they disconnected the autonomous system, they could have saved the aircraft and everyone on it. With no human pilots to discern the AI was malfunctioning, the plane would have crashed far sooner.

The failed sensors and perhaps faulty maintenance highlight how dangerous wholly AI flight control systems would be, because maintenance glitches and faulty sensors happen, which is only one of many reasons why completely autonomous flight control systems in charge of commercial passenger aircraft is a bad idea.

31-12-2018 4:16pm

Which does of course beg the question, "who or what is likely to make more mistakes, a human or an AI device?"
In the case of the air crash it appears the AI failure was compounded by the human error of not switching off the autopilot.

cnocbui · 31-12-2018 4:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Which does of course beg the question, "who or what is likely to make more mistakes, a human or an AI device?"
In the case of the air crash it appears the AI failure was compounded by the human error of not switching off the autopilot.

The pilot's didn't 'compound' the AI failure - make the situation worse - they failed to mitigate it. Without the pilots there wouldn't have been any attempt at mitigation.

31-12-2018 6:08pm

cnocbui wrote: »

The pilot's didn't 'compound' the AI failure - make the situation worse - they failed to mitigate it. Without the pilots there wouldn't have been any attempt at mitigation.

You're being oversensitive about the words used!!!
There were two failures, one by the AI and one by the pilots, does it matter is the word was compound rather than mitigate, the end result is the same

Twenty Grand · 31-12-2018 6:18pm

From the same link.
Note the most of the report you linked blames human error, either the pilots or maintenance. It does say there are "potential" design flaws, but more with there being no backup than the actual sensor or software.

The data points to three factors that seem to have contributed to the disaster:

* A potential design flaw in Boeing's new anti-stall addition to the MAX's flight-control system and a lack of communication to airlines about the system.

* The baffling failure of the Lion Air pilots to recognize what was happening and execute a standard procedure to shut off the faulty system.

* And a Lion Air maintenance shortfall that allowed the plane to fly repeatedly without fixing the key sensor that was feeding false information to the flight computer on previous flights.

Their failure to shut off the automated tail movements is baffling.

"No one would expect a pilot to sit there and play tag with the system 25 times" before the system won out, said Lemme. "This airplane should not have crashed. There are human factors involved

Lion Air has a very poor safety record and has been accused of skimping on maintenance to cut costs.

One would image the reason for no redundancy is there are pilots to take control if anything happens.

The pilots failed here.

magicbastarder · 14-02-2019 11:50am

Bikes put spanner in works of Dutch driverless car schemes
Report highlights problems bicycles cause to self-driving cars’ detection systems
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/13/bikes-put-spanner-in-works-of-dutch-driverless-car-schemes

14-02-2019 1:30pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

Bikes put spanner in works of Dutch driverless car schemes
Report highlights problems bicycles cause to self-driving cars’ detection systems
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/13/bikes-put-spanner-in-works-of-dutch-driverless-car-schemes

I think that we're many years away from trusting autonomous vehicles on a shared use road, on motorways or other powered vehicles only roads, then only a few years.

loyatemu · 14-02-2019 2:03pm

good article on driverless, trackless "trams"

http://theconversation.com/why-trackless-trams-are-ready-to-replace-light-rail-103690

prinzeugen · 15-02-2019 1:14am

loyatemu wrote: »

good article on driverless, trackless "trams"

http://theconversation.com/why-trackless-trams-are-ready-to-replace-light-rail-103690

They are not trackless though. Yes there is no "track" as in steel rails and sleepers, but it still only runs on a predetermined path.

A track in otherwords! I would love to know how these things would behave on icy tarmac. I imagine they would be jackknifing all over the place.

15-02-2019 10:29am

loyatemu wrote: »

good article on driverless, trackless "trams"

http://theconversation.com/why-trackless-trams-are-ready-to-replace-light-rail-103690

prinzeugen wrote: »

They are not trackless though. Yes there is no "track" as in steel rails and sleepers, but it still only runs on a predetermined path.

A track in other words! I would love to know how these things would behave on icy tarmac. I imagine they would be jackknifing all over the place.

Sounds like a great system for cities that have a large sprawl that would be prohibitively expensive to service using a conventional tram system, but unless a huge amount of investment is made in ensuring the road where it runs is kept in near perfect condition, the ride would soon deteriorate to that of a bus.

AndrewJRenko · 17-02-2019 10:55am

magicbastarder wrote: »

Bikes put spanner in works of Dutch driverless car schemes
Report highlights problems bicycles cause to self-driving cars’ detection systems
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/13/bikes-put-spanner-in-works-of-dutch-driverless-car-schemes

Isn't it funny how the bikes put the spanner in, and not the idiot designers who failed to design for bikes. In Netherlands.

is_that_so · 17-02-2019 11:01am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it funny how the bikes put the spanner in, and not the idiot designers who failed to design for bikes. In Netherlands.

It's not an idiot designer issue. Cyclists, like pedestrians, are an unpredictable variable hence the suggestions in the article to explore larger road options first.

AndrewJRenko · 17-02-2019 11:06am

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not an idiot designer issue. Cyclists, like pedestrians, are an unpredictable variable hence the suggestions in the article to explore larger road options first.

Cars are fairly unpredictable too, in my experience.

cnocbui · 17-02-2019 11:49am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it funny how the bikes put the spanner in, and not the idiot designers who failed to design for bikes. In Netherlands.

I don't think it's so much the bikes putting a spanner in it so much as the complexity and skill set required to do the task of driving has been grossly underestimated and that the general confidence in the ability to create systems that can do the task has been severely misplaced.

You can't design for bikes because the task of driving, IMO, requires general intelligence, so it's a task that is too complex for our current level of technology.

17-02-2019 12:07pm

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not an idiot designer issue. Cyclists, like pedestrians, are an unpredictable variable hence the suggestions in the article to explore larger road options first.

It is there variables that will ultimately stop autonomous vehicles from ever using mixed use routes.

17-02-2019 12:11pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cars are fairly unpredictable too, in my experience.

True, but an order of magnitude less than pedestrians, they generally don't run across pedestrian crossings, cycle from footpath to cross in front of you and a thousand other actions that cars generally don't perform.

17-02-2019 12:14pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't think it's so much the bikes putting a spanner in it so much as the complexity and skill set required to do the task of driving has been grossly underestimated and that the general confidence in the ability to create systems that can do the task has been severely misplaced.

You can't design for bikes because the task of driving, IMO, requires general intelligence, so it's a task that is too complex for our current level of technology.

For mixed use routes, I would agree, motorways on the other hand require a much lower level of "intelligence" to programme an autonomous vehicle to drive safely.

cnocbui · 17-02-2019 12:23pm

I am just stunned by how much people are paying extra for the advanced autopilot package in Teslas. They will never get an autonomous driving software update that delivers what they seem to think they will get. 2019 and Musk still hasn't had a Tesla drive coast to coast. It may be doable in a carefully orchestrated one-off, but the sell of reclining your seat and snoozing most of the way or playing with a laptop or phone most of the time is never going to be achievable in the lifetime of their cars.

If you have to have your hands on the steering wheel and be paying close attention, you might as well be the one moving the steering wheel.

AndrewJRenko · 17-02-2019 12:53pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't think it's so much the bikes putting a spanner in it so much as the complexity and skill set required to do the task of driving has been grossly underestimated and that the general confidence in the ability to create systems that can do the task has been severely misplaced.

You can't design for bikes because the task of driving, IMO, requires general intelligence, so it's a task that is too complex for our current level of technology.

I'm not seeing why bikes would be a particular challenge, relative to other cars or pedestrians.

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but an order of magnitude less than pedestrians, they generally don't run across pedestrian crossings, cycle from footpath to cross in front of you and a thousand other actions that cars generally don't perform.

No, but they do tend to make fast, dangerous manoeuvres without looking or indicating while scrolling through Instagram. Why would there be a particular difficulty with cyclists, relative to motorists and pedestrians?

Twenty Grand · 17-02-2019 1:03pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, but they do tend to make fast, dangerous manoeuvres without looking or indicating while scrolling through Instagram. Why would there be a particular difficulty with cyclists, relative to motorists and pedestrians?

Anything to do with physical size, quick manoeuvers, small turning circle, quick acceleration?

I don't know much about it, but I would have though bikes were more likely to take extreme manoeuvers, like a sharp 90 degree turn for instance, where a car can't make such a turn safely.

17-02-2019 2:09pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not seeing why bikes would be a particular challenge, relative to other cars or pedestrians.

No, but they do tend to make fast, dangerous manoeuvres without looking or indicating while scrolling through Instagram. Why would there be a particular difficulty with cyclists, relative to motorists and pedestrians?

The active sensors on the autonomous vehicles need to be far more sensitive to detect and identify pedestrians & cyclists than ones that only need to identify other vehicles.

It's asking too much of the technology to make split second decisions and then change the direction of something that's probably moving at 100Kph and weighing 1-2 tonnes, based of the interpretation of what a small object is that is moving across the road 100metres ahead.

It could be a crisp packet or a cyclist, if it's a cyclist will it be safely across before reaching it, these thought processes are natural to a human, not to a computer. So my belief that autonomous vehicles will be restricted to motorways (with active transponders) will be as far as it will get for the foreseeable future is technically sound based on the abilities of AI today.

In reality, the roads would need to have compatible transponders that communicate the local topology to the vehicles onboard computers as opposed to relying on the vehicles sensors to make sense of the world around.

AndrewJRenko · 17-02-2019 2:16pm

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Anything to do with physical size, quick manoeuvers, small turning circle, quick acceleration?

I don't know much about it, but I would have though bikes were more likely to take extreme manoeuvers, like a sharp 90 degree turn for instance, where a car can't make such a turn safely.

Maybe, but I'd have thought that cyclists would largely fall somewhere between motorists and pedestrians on all of those attributes, so I'm wondering why they are set up as 'the problem'.

17-02-2019 2:22pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe, but I'd have thought that cyclists would largely fall somewhere between motorists and pedestrians on all of those attributes, so I'm wondering why they are set up as 'the problem'.

The "problem" is for the system to keep track of multiple small objects that are detected by the sensors, identify them, predict their future motion and whether your presence and direction of motion will influence their future movements and how these movements will influence the movement of vehicles around you.

These are things humans are able to do almost without thinking.

cnocbui · 17-02-2019 4:16pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not seeing why bikes would be a particular challenge, relative to other cars or pedestrians.

Try designing and making sensors and software to detect them and differentiate them from background clutter. They tend to be close to the kerb making that task especially hard. Is it a kid riding down a footpath or is it on the road? Is it one bike, two, three? Is one faster than the other and likely to imminently pull out and go around the others? Bicycles and pedestrians in general are very hard to detect, classify and predict for.

17-02-2019 7:02pm

Great to see the ostriches alive and well on this thread

17-02-2019 7:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Great to see the ostriches alive and well on this thread

Depends on what you mean by ostriches?

Are they those who believe that technology will overcome all or is the more realistically thinking people who see the utilisation of autonomous vehicles being limited to controlled environments.

cnocbui · 17-02-2019 7:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Great to see the ostriches alive and well on this thread

Great to see the lemmings are as oblivious to reality as Teslas are to large stationary things in front of them...

I walked away from this crash last night and am so thankful for the safety of Tesla cars. However, I am a little disappointed to learn that its autopilot feature is unable to identify a stationary construction vehicle.

The person is a Professor of Medicine.

paleoperson · 17-02-2019 10:28pm

"And then I said:

'Your cars will be driving by themselves in 2020, and Space X will be taking people on holidays to Mars by 2025!'"

prinzeugen · 18-02-2019 2:36am

A CEO is finally admitting what I have been saying for years.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6569967/Self-driving-cars-NEVER-able-drive-conditions-Google-self-driving-car-boss-admits.html

AlmightyCushion · 18-02-2019 3:11am

prinzeugen wrote: »

A CEO is finally admitting what I have been saying for years.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6569967/Self-driving-cars-NEVER-able-drive-conditions-Google-self-driving-car-boss-admits.html

Just like human drivers can't drive in all conditions.

prinzeugen · 18-02-2019 3:18am

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Just like human drivers can't drive in all conditions.

Exactly. All these claims that AI and self driving trains, cars etc would be safer is bollox.

And they are programmed by humans. The X-Files did a good episode on it.

AlmightyCushion · 18-02-2019 3:23am

prinzeugen wrote: »

Exactly. All these claims that AI and self driving trains, cars etc would be safer is bollox.

And they are programmed by humans. The X-Files did a good episode on it.

The point I was making is that self driving cars won't be able to drive in all conditions but neither can humans. That doesn't mean self driving cars will fail or that they won't be safer than human drivers.

Being programmed by humans also doesn't mean it can't out perform a human. Alpha go was programmed by humans and it has beaten the best humans at go. Watson was programmed by humans and it beat the best jeopardy contestants at jeopardy.

cnocbui · 18-02-2019 3:50am

Alpha go used neural networks to program itself, so it wasn't really programmed by humans. One major problem with this approach is that humans can't troubleshoot such systems if things go wrong as there is no way to know how they work, let alone what went wrong. It's called the black box problem. If you deploy autonomous vehicles which were neural network trained, and then mysteriously some of them start causing fatal crashes, you can't troubleshoot the code to try and find out what went wrong as humans didn't write the code, or more correctly, craft the algorithm. Probably unlikely but it is worth keeping in mind.

paleoperson · 18-02-2019 5:29am

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The point I was making is that self driving cars won't be able to drive in all conditions but neither can humans.

No, they are clearly talking about conditions that are driveable in by humans but not by AI. They are not talking about conditions that are undriveable in by humans.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That doesn't mean self driving cars will fail or that they won't be safer than human drivers.

Nobody suggested self driving cars could never be safer than human drivers in any specified conditions. I don't mean to come across as impolite but you're really not making any point here.

18-02-2019 8:41am

prinzeugen wrote: »

Exactly. All these claims that AI and self driving trains, cars etc would be safer is bollox.

And they are programmed by humans. The X-Files did a good episode on it.

Self driving trains are real and there are several driverless rail networks around the world, in controlled environments where the "system" is separated from humans, autonomous systems are perfectly safe.

Flying is another form of transport that can be automated without too much difficulty, the pilot is totally dependent on the instruments anyway.

18-02-2019 8:49am

prinzeugen wrote: »

A CEO is finally admitting what I have been saying for years.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6569967/Self-driving-cars-NEVER-able-drive-conditions-Google-self-driving-car-boss-admits.html

Classic Daily Mail type of story, all about the locals wanting to scupper the vehicles.

But in the middle there's this:

Autonomy always will have some constraints,' John Krafcik, head of the self-driving car unit of Google parent company Alphabet.

Police in Arizona have recorded 21 incidents in the past two years concerning vigilante citizens who have cast rocks, pointed guns at and slashed the tires of Waymo's autonomous vans

'It's really, really hard,' Krafcik said.
'You don't know what you don't know until you're actually in there and trying to do things.'
While self driving cars may not become widespread soon, Krafcik said trucking is one area where self-driving vehicles could appear, due to a shortage of drivers.
'The trucking shortage is now,' Krafcik said.
'Moving goods on freeways to hub to hub is fairly straightforward.'

As I have said multiple times before, on motorways autonomous vehicles will work.

magicbastarder · 18-02-2019 9:03am

cnocbui wrote: »

The person is a Professor of Medicine.

a fantastic expert to speak about self driving cars!

markodaly · 18-02-2019 11:50am

Self-driving cars won't be able to drive in all conditions or environments. Just like today, you can't drive a car up the Slieve Bloom mountains. However, the vast majority of driving can be automated. People drive to work/school/shops and home. This is easy to automate in the next 5-10 years.

AlmightyCushion · 18-02-2019 12:14pm

paleoperson wrote: »

No, they are clearly talking about conditions that are driveable in by humans but not by AI. They are not talking about conditions that are undriveable in by humans.

John Krafcik, the person quoted in the article, said after wards that was what he was talking about.

paleoperson wrote: »

Nobody suggested self driving cars could never be safer than human drivers in any specified conditions. I don't mean to come across as impolite but you're really not making any point here.

prinzeugen said it in the post I was quoting.

Exactly. All these claims that AI and self driving trains, cars etc would be safer is bollox.

cnocbui · 18-02-2019 2:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Self driving trains are real and there are several driverless rail networks around the world, in controlled environments where the "system" is separated from humans, autonomous systems are perfectly safe.

Flying is another form of transport that can be automated without too much difficulty, the pilot is totally dependent on the instruments anyway.

What a load of BS. Flying is another area where only general intelligence can possibly handle exceptions and malfunctions. You can't just apply the brake, pull over and turn on the hazards at 10,000m. The Lion Air disaster was caused by the automated system pushing the plane into the ground. People have been critical of the pilots for NOT turning the automated system off!

I have not the slightest fear of flying, I have flown planes, but even the prospect of an AI pilot terrifies me.

cnocbui · 18-02-2019 2:41pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

a fantastic expert to speak about self driving cars!

What do you mean?

paleoperson · 18-02-2019 2:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Classic Daily Mail type of story, all about the locals wanting to scupper the vehicles.

Bringing up something notable and interesting as a small point of the article?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

John Krafcik, the person quoted in the article, said after wards that was what he was talking about.

Really, about conditions so bad humans wouldn't be able to drive either? Can you show me where he said that please?

You realize what the weather is like in Phoenix Arizona which he is the head of right? Not exactly what you see on Ice Truckers.

Clearly someone is getting the situation totally wrong here and stating that to others, either Daily Mail or you, who is full of ****. Maybe have a think about that when you realize the answer instead of going around saying things like "daily fail LOL".

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

prinzeugen said it in the post I was quoting.

I felt like he was saying it as a general rule but alright. I hope you notice also that the "AI" it takes to ride on the freeway is as simple as "if object in front of you going slower check if object near you in fast lane, change lanes if possible"... that type of thing - it can barely be termed "AI" at all. They also don't use optics or anything like that for the location of the vehicles, it's a glorified radar system.

magicbastarder · 18-02-2019 3:34pm

cnocbui wrote: »

What do you mean?

in that it didn't take a professor of medicine to cop that the tesla failed to detect a truck. i.e. his job doesn't add weight to that observation.

AlmightyCushion · 18-02-2019 3:38pm

paleoperson wrote: »

Bringing up something notable and interesting as a small point of the article?

Really, about conditions so bad humans wouldn't be able to drive either? Can you show me where he said that please?

You realize what the weather is like in Phoenix Arizona which he is the head of right? Not exactly what you see on Ice Truckers.

Clearly someone is getting the situation totally wrong here and stating that to others, either Daily Mail or you, who is full of ****. Maybe have a think about that when you realize the answer instead of going around saying things like "daily fail LOL".

I felt like he was saying it as a general rule but alright. I hope you notice also that the "AI" it takes to ride on the freeway is as simple as "if object in front of you going slower check if object near you in fast lane, change lanes if possible"... that type of thing - it can barely be termed "AI" at all. They also don't use optics or anything like that for the location of the vehicles, it's a glorified radar system.

Maybe you're thinking of someone else but I didn't say anything negative about the daily mail here.

https://twitter.com/johnkrafcik/status/1063281250088042496?s=21

Yeah some context missing here, but it did make for a fun headline. 🤪 (I said the same thing about my own driving.) The point is that autonomous driving, like human driving, will always have constraints.

That tweet was actually in response to a cnet article where the headline was:

It'll be decades before autonomous cars are widespread on the roads -- and even then, they won't be able to drive themselves in certain conditions - John Krafcik CEO of Waymo

cnocbui · 18-02-2019 3:48pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

in that it didn't take a professor of medicine to cop that the tesla failed to detect a truck. i.e. his job doesn't add weight to that observation.

It was his car that was totalled, I thought it added a bit of credibility in case anyone were to suggest the reported incident was fake.

paleoperson · 18-02-2019 3:57pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

https://twitter.com/johnkrafcik/status/1063281250088042496?s=21

That tweet was actually in response to a cnet article where the headline was:

It'll be decades before autonomous cars are widespread on the roads -- and even then, they won't be able to drive themselves in certain conditions - John Krafcik CEO of Waymo

He seems to be trying to walk back his remarks a bit also. The point remains that in his original comment he stated they won't be able to drive themselves in certain conditions. Now I'm sure he didn't mean extreme weather conditions where the car is physically unable to move, right? I think it's at least fair to say that AI will never be driving in icy weather.

Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc

Comments