- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Will they admit how much time the humans actually do the controlling.
If you keep doing the work for them, they’ll never learn. They need to figure it out for themselves.
I still have no idea how these are legally able to operate on public roads. Shit seems wild to me. Wouldn’t last 5 seconds here in Chicago, for numerous reasons lol
Well bribery and corruption are illegal only in theory and only if you don’t call it “lobbying.” Google has a lot of money so it really doesn’t matter (to the people making the rules) if these things should be on the road or not.
Why won’t waymo work in Chicago specifically?
“Hey clanker, you drove in the wrong city…!”
Actually Islanders at it again
AI = Actual International-workers
AI = Asians Inside
Oh my god so what you’re saying is that they left out rice and the Asians really did show up!
Someone needs to slap an Asians Inside sticker in the same style as the Intel ones on the Waymos.
AI =Actually Indians
I’m also AI
Actually Introverted
Same for the delivery bots. They’re all getting some remote control help.
It’s all mechanical Turks
This is way better than Robo Taxi convoys of 2 chase cars following one driverless vehicle. A fraction of the footprint and manpower cost of Musk’s venture.
Curious what the law is with regard to someone in the Philipines driving a car on US roads without a US driver’s license.
With like 200 ping
It’s a mega corpo. Laws don’t apply to them silly you.
Laws are for poors.
And for the rich that fucks other rich people.
And these foreign crowd workers know the local traffic rules? Maybe they even have regular drivers licenses?
Here’s a short video of someone receiving help. They explain briefly that they provide instructions to the vehicle, they don’t do the actual driving
This is how it generally behaves, but they are capable of taking direct control in more difficult situations. It’s only very slow maneurvers though, it’s not like they would be driving it down the street. They could move it off the road onto the shoulder though if needed.
Edit: I am trying to find the source, but having problems. It was only ever mentioned in 1 official waymo document that I’ve seen that it was technically possible. My guess is they say their remote helpers can’t / don’t do it because they truly can’t, and it’s some highly restricted type of person who can, who isn’t classified like these other employees. The whole misleading but technical true kinda speak. I’ll keep looking though because I was really surprised to see them admit it when I saw it in an official document.
Found it
In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.
Looks like I was right as well on terminology, it’s not the remote operators that can do it, it’s the “Event Response” team that can.
As far as I know this is the only official acknowledgement it’s possible. Everywhere else they say it isn’t, and this is a footnote in that document.
at a very low speed over a very short distance.
LOL so when they get in a situation in a tunnel that is 10 or 20 km long (ok you have them only 4km in poor Usa, but we have them here), they first drive it at 10km/h and then they give up after 300m? Because the rules are the rules??
Can you imagine the lawsuits?
No. I am not from there. In my country we have a law that requires such remote operators to have a license that is valid here.
(Sadly, we do not require them to reside here)
So if a business has AI drive a car, but then AI hands it over to a human who has no drivers license in the location, they are essentially allowing someone to operate a vehicle without a license, who is not even inside the country. If that car crashes into someone, Waymo has to explain why they let someone wildly unqualified and unlicensed operate for them. That’s millions in damages for gross neglect.
I think the interventions here are more like: “that’s a trash can someone pushed onto the road - let me help you around it” rather than: “let me drive you all the way to your destination.”
It’s usually not the genuinely hard stuff that stumps AI drivers - it’s the really stupid, obvious things it simply never encountered in its training data before.
it’s the really stupid, obvious things
Hm. Interesting. But that makes them look even mode incapable than I feared.
Broadly speaking, an AI driver getting stumped means it’s stuck in the middle of the road - while a human driver getting stumped means plowing into a semi truck.
I’d rather be inconvenienced than killed. And from what I’ve seen, even our current AI drivers are already statistically safer than the average human driver - and they’re only going to keep getting better.
They’ll never be flawless though. Nothing is.
current AI drivers are already statistically safer than
As long as they use level 3 autonomous cars and then cheat with remote operators instead of using real level 5 cars, such statistics remain quite meaningless.
However, they tell about the people who use them as arguments.
As the OP stated, the low velocity cases are not causing deadly accidents. And you can’t drive by wire at high speed (too much latency). So I doubt it’s affecting the stats in any meaningful way.
Honestly I much prefer they have a human as a backup than not.
As the OP stated, the low velocity cases are not causing deadly accidents.
Make humans drive as slow as these cars and deaths will drop too.
The cars aren’t driving that slow the vast majority of the time…
Ai drivers have run over and crushed people slowly before too though because they didn’t see the person as an “obstacle” to be avoided, or because they were on the ground, it didn’t see them
And they always will. You need to look at the big picture here, not individual cases. If we replaced every single car on US roads with one driven by AI - proven to be 10 times better a driver than a human - that would still mean 4,000 people getting killed by them each year. That, however, doesn’t mean we should go back to human drivers and 40,000 people killed annually.
You need to look at the big picture here, not individual cases.
We should really be investing in trains and busses, not cars of any type.
I think your logic is flawed. The discussion is about a specific form of transportation. By your own logic, you should be suggesting that people fly everywhere.
I fully agree with you, but there is the issue of robotaxis crashing 3x as often as human drivers - and thats with a human supervisor on board. So if we switched completely to AI cars with the current level of integration, thats 120000 people killed.
That’s Tesla, not Waymo. Tesla’s hardware is shit and does not even include lidar. You can’t judge the entire industry by the worst example.
Tesla made the idiotic decision to rely entirely on cameras, waymo used lidar and other sensors to augment vision.
Feels like the robot hoovers when they encounter an unexpected poo.
Saw this blog post recently about waymo’s sim setup for generating synthetic data and they really do seem to be generating pretty much everything in existence. The level of generalization of the model they seem to be using is either shockingly low or they abort immediately at the earliest sign of high perplexity.
I’m guessing it’s the latter, they need to keep accidents to a minimum if they’re ever going to get broad legislation to legalise them.
Every single accident is analysed to death by the media and onlookers alike, with a large group of people wanting it to fail.
This is a prime example, we’ve known about the human intervention for a while now but period people seem surprised that those people are in another country.
This used to be my job. They’re not controlling the cars. They’re basically completing real-time CAPTCHAs, telling the car whether the cameras see a stop sign, a bicycle, temporary barriers, etc. If the car can’t identify an object that could possibly cross its path, it pulls over and stops until an operator can do a sanity-check on whatever the car’s confused by. They only need to be able to identify objects on the road, not know the rules of the road.
Moravy also argued that to stop anybody from taking control of vehicles, the company “actively participates in hacking events
Read this slowly:
Here they admit that their vehicles can be hacked and then remotely cotrolled.
“Your kid is safe at school, because we insist all teachers use condoms”
They’re running red team hacking scenarios, an extremely standard, common, and good practice in the cybersecurity industry. Any device, especially one connected to the internet, is at risk of being hacked - it would be naive to assume otherwise, so they’re hiring professionals to penetrate their security before someone else does. This is actually a sign they’re taking security seriously.
Also, from the article: “they do not remotely drive the vehicles”.
Also, from the article: “they do not remotely drive the vehicles”.
You may quote and repeat this as much as you like… ;-)
Do you actually have any evidence Waymo staff can remotely drive their vehicles? Or are you just tilting at windmills? I don’t really appreciate the insinuation that I am some rube by someone evidently unaware of basic cybersecurity concepts.
There are real problems with this arrangement that should be focused on rather than vague speculations - i.e. the exploitation of developing nations by the machine learning/tech industry.
(not op) Right here. It’s the only place they’ve ever admitted its possible.
In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.
Hmm interesting, thanks for the link!
Do you actually have any evidence
I have expressed my belief, or my doubt, however you want to look at it.
someone evidently unaware of basic cybersecurity concepts.
I can assure you that is not the case. I work in IT, all my life, much longer than you, and I know all of it’s basic concepts.
Think: what would happen when such a car gets stuck and the remote operator can’t achieve anything with “giving directions”? He needs some stronger action. Maybe he needs to “escalate” to some “senior”. What would that person do?
There is the possibility of remote steering, and I think they would use it, 10 out of 10 times, instead of telling their passengers that they give up now and everybody must leave the car.
“I work in IT, all my life, much longer than you, and I know all its basic concepts.”
And anyone who’s spent their life working in IT would laugh you out of the room for that sentence. Lost all credibility with that BS.
For future reference, here’s your proof its possible to be remotely moved, which means a hacker could exploit it.
In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.
No. They just end the ride and send somebody from the local depot to drive the car back to the garage.
Source: I was on Waymo’s Fleet Response team for a year doing literally this job that is now outsourced overseas. While the tech exists for full remote steering, NHTSA regulations disallow it, and that’s one of the few agencies that Google actually has to abide by if they want to drive their cars on public roads.
Source: I was on Waymo’s Fleet Response team for a year doing literally this job
Good to hear. Thanks for sharing this.
But still, if I were some higher manager there, then I would probably think a little different than you honest people:
that is now outsourced overseas.
- One of the differences is that these operator people come a lot cheaper now.
NHTSA regulations disallow it
- Another difference is that they won’t ever tell any American what they actually do at their job, because they are on the other side of the globe, where it makes no difference at all if they can spell this 5 letter abbreviation or not.
You and every other conspiracy theorist can express your unevidenced beliefs how you like, this conversation clearly isn’t worth my time.
If it’s connected to internet it can be hacked.
If it’s connected to internet it can be hacked.
Correct, so far.
Only a few years ago it was the usual thing with cars (except Teslas) that their entertainment system was connected to the internet, but everything related to driving was not. Such a thing as hacking and remote driving was fundamentally impossible.
Today, even in the European cars is a whole lot more internet inside. But real remote driving is still not a standard possibility.
The Mechanical Turk strikes again.
Waymo knowing when it is stumped is actually a pretty good thing. Better than just running over cats & small children.
AI stands for Actually
IndiansFilipinosAnyone else not very impressed?
Let’s get rid of undocumented workers they said
being “undocumented” or “illegal” is a local bedtime story. It doesn’t apply to people everywhere
Each worker has a readme now, it’s alright /s
Don’t forget 200 pages of EULA
this tech is doing great to devalue workers. drivers, this time.
