This comment is very selfawarewolves. I agree, people in this thread are overly concerned with blame attribution, but maybe it's not the group you think.
SFFD is highlighting to people who live/work/visit SF that so called "AV" taxis are getting in their way. That they were able to move another vehicle to get the ambulance on its way is immaterial. They are saying that in a different set of circumstances where they can't, this car blocks the ambulance. That's the problem, that's the fault.
Your comment sounds like throwing a ladder on the freeway, but you vigilantes better not stop traffic to clear it, no one has hit it. Yet.
Ok so the guys and gals who we pay to save your life are saying they're getting in the way. But MLRoboCorporation(TM)(c)(r) says fuck those guys, they can go around?
I think I'll side with the humans on this one, let them take control of the vehicle.
I don't care how much money Kyle Vogt loses to car theft, that's not my problem. Clearly this industry needs to get regulated hard.
oh no dont speak ill of Ycombinator's startup bros. You will get downvoted!
Loved Justin.TV and how they helped shake up the media industrty up ... all the start-up bro ethos followed there successfully helped kill and bring new media business models (all the Frasier, Seinfeld, etc 24/7 channels on Justin.TV). Awesome!
Applying that same killing it here theory (Cruise trying to rapidly .. rapidly expand in many, many cities while Waymo with its WAY better track record as of late August is expanding to only one city .. Austin) is just down right deadly as we seen with Travis Kalanick's version of trying to kill it and in turn killing a pedestrian. Who cares if you kill business and in turn new business come from that .. that's awesome but killing people to kill it and win this race. Irresponsible and disgusting and again they're expanding to 5 to ten more cities (Nashville, DC, Austin, etc, etc) yet causing chaos in San Fran (Waymo is not & they have been working on this tech since 2007).
It isn't FUD, it's dumb autonomous vehicles won't get out of the way. Just force them to allow human intervention, a person gets in and moves it. What's the big deal? It shouldn't even be restricted to emergency personnel.
If people steal them Cruise can file charges and consider it an expense of doing business.
I'm bearish on self driving usually but this seems blown out of porportions.
1) I don't think it was in the way. A lane was open to the right lane but it waited 90s for a firetruck to move in the left lane before it continued on.
2) If I am paying for a ride in a Cruise and some random person hops in the front seat to "relocate" the car because it is inconviencing them - I will not be happy. Safety issue, etc.
3) We don't know if the patient would have died anyways. It was only a 90 second delay.
4) "after" in the title is being used as temporally after. There were a lot of things that happened before you could attribute to the cause of death - signaling out this one is sensationalist.
1) it took 90s to prepare for transport before being able to move. This is fast but also standard.
2) If you are in the car, and I as a firefighter enter, I am going to announce that and your opinion doesn’t matter. I am moving it for safetys sake. I will be safe, kind, and take your safety into consideration. But that you will be late to work does not enter.
3+4) I have extricated patients, in massive accidents, alive when I package them on the stretcher, and then only hear they died later. It fucking sucks. Was it me not getting that roof popped, or door opened fast enough? Was it the amb? Traffic? Was it the taxi who refused to move?
2) I agree with you but normally a car is locked from the inside and random people (firefighter or not) shouldn't be able to just open it via the usual methods. Police still have to bust out windows to extract people all the time. They don't get a special unlock button.
I agree with you in general. I'm sorry you have to go through things like that.
Do you live in the bay area? “T.T not enough housing!”, except traffic is out of control and we’re just building more massive apartment buildings along every inch of freeway we can. No one seems to be making any plan with anything close to a spec or goal.
The reality is that not everyone can live here. Should we cut down all the trees and cover Kauai in skyscraper apartments so more people can live there?
I don’t think so.
Even this project is kicking the can (eventually Corusucant). But at least they aren’t coming into someone’s community, that THEY PICKED because of the way it is, and saying oh no no, we need to build an ADU and multi family dwellings everywhere!
If only there were some sort of solution to cars clogging the road. Instead of one person in one car, we could (somehow, I haven't solved this part of the problem yet) have multiple people in a single, larger vehicle, and that single vehicle could go nearby to the places people need to go to, and they could walk from there to their destination. It's totally radical, I know, and could never work,
definitely wouldn't be working in many other places in the world. I'm not sure what we'd call this transportation option, but I'd have it open to the public so that everyone could use this to get around the city. Note that it needs to be a city to have the density to support such a "transportation for the public" option, which involves, you guessed it, building denser housing.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion on the future of Kauai, but that very attitude is what's lead to San Francisco's current day problems.
The island of Lanai may never get developed. Thats the only way to preserve things how you want. Otherwise other people's opinions, in places of power, get what they want, regardless of what your want. Just look across the water to Honolulu, which is rife with skyscrapers.
Sadly, the Kauai from years past is already gone. Rose tinted glasses are nice to look at the past with, but amonst the extraordinary natural beauty, modern day Kauai has the same problems as everywhere else. Meth, fentanyl, and a lack of jobs.
"In May 2020, the Federal Reserve changed the official formula for calculating the M1 money supply.
Prior to May 2020, M1 included currency in circulation, demand deposits at commercial banks, and other checkable deposits.
After May 2020, the definition was expanded to include other liquid deposits, including savings accounts. This change was accompanied by a sharp spike in the reported value of the M1 money supply."
Why didn't I think of this? I should be making up things which I pay him unrealistic amounts of money for in order to teach him that work is about being an extractionist sponge rather than trying to find a way to make a meaningful contribution in exchange for a social/economic reward.
He both wants to work and wants money, like most humans.
If you took the time to read it, you would know that's not at all what this legislation is about. These regulations existed because children were exploited and taken advantage of in the past. [1] Would you care to inform us of the specific changes in Iowa that have now made "children working in dangerous conditions" no longer a concern?
I'll provide a counterpoint now, you can just reply "sorry I was wrong". [2] just a few months ago a US based organization "Packers Sanitation Services, Inc." was found illegally employing minors across eight states, with children as young as 13 cleaning their meat processing plants with hazardous chemicals during night shifts.
14 year olds don't need to log more hours at the office or cleaning industrial bone saws. They need to log more hours in their education and playing with their friends.
That form of AI has already been invented long ago, it's called simply Copy & Paste.
GPT combines prompt, context and knowledge, it selects and adapts code. It even does problem solving: above average human rating on easy problems and 20% over humans on medium level problems. When did the xerox or parrot for that matter do that?
If you think copy and paste is artificial intelligence then there probably isn't much of a discussion to be had here.
Yes, very smart and talented people have released ground breaking and amazing tools leveraging massively trained ML models. The model is not problem solving or intelligent in any sense of the word (take it from oai: https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt)
"ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers..."
To be back on topic, I don't think some sweaty dude from the internet should be issued a copyright for typing "Minnie Mouse wearing a pikachu t-shirt!" into DALL-E and submitting the resulting image.
At the same time, I read a post like this one: https://andys.page/posts/how-to-draw and I have really no objection to copyright being assigned. I think the difference is the human authorship, and I think the Copyright Office has made a pretty good first swag.
That isn't how humans work. In any case, most humans are capable of FSD. Your Tesla isn't. No one cares about 360 degree 30Hz cameras. Just like two eyes aren't the solution to driving. Lots of animals have two eyes, most of them won't ever drive a vehicle.
Other commenter "My coworker gave me a ride in his Tesla ... FSD tried to cross over into the opposing lanes, ran a red, narrowly avoided hitting a cyclist"
Your reply "Huh. FSD (Mine) took my kid to diving practice this afternoon. Weird world. Just please stop with the hate."
I'm not sure what you hope to prove by replying to anecdotes about unacceptable autopilot with anecdotes about acceptable autopilot? It doesn't mean everyone else is a hater any more than you're a shill. It just means autopilot performance across hardware and environmental factors is not within the envelope it needs to be.
Maybe try replacing "FSD" in these comments with the names of two fictional friends.
"Steve tried to cross over into the opposing lanes, ran a red, narrowly avoided hitting a cyclist"
"Huh. Rick took my kid to diving practice this afternoon. Weird world. Just please stop with the hate."
Should we trust Steve because Rick is a good driver?
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, though with one minor exception: while Steve and Rick are two people with different experiences, risk acceptance, attentiveness, etc, FSD is FSD.
Speaking of risk acceptance, I wouldn't trust my life or anyone else's to FSD. I don't have FSD in my Model 3, but I have used all of the other driver assist features. There have been too many times when those features have made serious mistakes, so I don't use them. Even at it's best, FSD appears to be about as good as the worst drivers on the road. One anecdote of poor performance, for me, is one too many.
> Should we trust Steve because Rick is a good driver?
We should accept that all drivers make mistakes, even you, and demand measurable safety metrics from all our control systems. Is that really so weird?
What we should not do is start thousand-comment flame wars on HN about how Steve is unsafe and that we should take away his license. In fact, those three mistakes are of course routine for human drivers. I bet you personally, statop, have done them in the past. And yet, no lynch mob.
That's the "hate" part I'm talking about. Please stop. Please. It's really hurting the discourse about a product area that's actually very subject to measurement, and about a specific product that is objectively very safe.
Tesla's self-driving/ADAS have more confirmed fatalities than the self-driving/ADAS of every other automaker in the world combined.
The NHTSA shows that Tesla AP/FSD is 50+x more likely to get into an accident than Ford and Toyota's systems, despite Tesla AP/FSD being available in a tiny fraction of the cars. Tesla AP/FSD is more than 3x more likely to get into an accident than the second worst automaker's comparable systems.
It doesn't matter how you try to analyze the statistics, Tesla AP/FSD is objectively the most dangerous in the world.
> The NHTSA shows that Tesla AP/FSD is 50+x more likely to get into an accident than Ford and Toyota's systems
You just made that up. This is untrue, period. It's a lie. Please. Stop. I don't understand why you want to do this or what you think you're achieving by this kind of argument.
FB definitely deserves some shade: the “move fast and break things” philosophy is real, and they’ve (we’ve) played fast-and-loose with things we didn’t fully understand, some of that ended very badly.
But as megacorps go, FB seems to have had a “come to Jesus” moment on those kinds of mistakes and done a hard pivot to a more responsible and adult posture. It was built by people barely out of childhood, certainly I was still a child when I worked there and putting a 20-something in charge of a powerful company is going to create some collateral damage. No one can say with a straight face that FB hasn’t fucked up more than once or twice.
But those kids grew up a bit, whether via altruism or pragmatism have decided to step quite a bit more carefully, and unlike 10 years ago, FB is probably closer to “don’t be evil” than Google is. It’s still a ruthless megacorp answering to shareholders, but I wouldn’t say that in 2022 it’s even close to the worst of the bunch.
SFFD is highlighting to people who live/work/visit SF that so called "AV" taxis are getting in their way. That they were able to move another vehicle to get the ambulance on its way is immaterial. They are saying that in a different set of circumstances where they can't, this car blocks the ambulance. That's the problem, that's the fault.
Your comment sounds like throwing a ladder on the freeway, but you vigilantes better not stop traffic to clear it, no one has hit it. Yet.