Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

This makes sense--and is quite consistent with what I've heard around some efforts being far more open (ahem) to open sourcing their code than their data.

A lot probably comes down to the size of the moat. If some fairly modest dataset is "good enough" that implies needed data will be widely available can be used by anyone for their automation algorithms. (Regulation could also force some level of standardization at this layer.)

Alternatively, truly vast data sets could turn out to be the difference between decent assistive driving systems, autonomy on highways, and more broadly useful and enabling self-driving technology. Such data sets could end up being outside the capabilities of a few companies who got there first.

View on HN

> A lot probably comes down to the size of the moat. If some fairly modest dataset is "good enough" that implies needed data will be widely available can be used by anyone for their automation algorithms. (Regulation could also force some level of standardization at this layer.)

Given that humans do without detailed data of this sort, I think it should be okay to leave manufacturers and service providers to figure out how proprietary or standardized the datasets should be.

I personally might never trust/desire an autonomous car, especially one connected to the internet, a phone network, or a car-to-car network. In a world where everyone has your best interests at heart, it seems like a nice feature; in the one world we've got, it doesn't.

Made me think of Michael Hastings demise... https://youtu.be/7zakBULPETo

The real point is that it is possible.

Any specific suspicious death may come and go, but the fact that something like this is believable with conventional networked cars is enough reason to be very skeptical of security and government access (and criminal access) claims of manufacturers, no matter how well-meaning.

If I had a level 5 autonomous car that was compromised by someone who wanted to kill me, they probably could. Or they could just push me down a flight of stairs.

Ultimately, I am alive because nobody cares enough to murder me.

https://www.xkcd.com/538/

"Why lock my door, people will open the door if they want to, or break the window."

I don't see what's wrong with having fewer things in your life which can silently kill you.

If you get in a new car, you are now completely at its mercy. There are few or no precautions you can take; you might as well lay on your back, and strap your arms down so your belly stays up.

What you're really doing is making it cheaper and easier to kill, misdirect, or trick you. This means that people who wanted to do these things before, but couldn't afford it, now can.

> Given that humans do without detailed data of this sort

Humans learn by using data from their interactions with the environment, since childhood. That's a ton of data and there might not be a way around that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com