hellllllllooo

Industrial robotics applications are limited in scope and the environment is adjusted to make the problem easier than for autonomous driving on roads. Even then there are issues that mean often a human operator/supervisor is needed. General autonomous vehicles systems are not widely used in industry if at all.

Making a system that works on roads with other cars and pedestrians and varying quality of road markings and infrastructure is a different problem entirely. Tesla is trying to do this with a limited set of sensors and compute compared to others with makes it even less feasible. Waymo is by far the furthest ahead and they don't claim that full autonomy is close like Musk is claiming.

It's not that it has to be no-fail it's that the failures need to be a subset of the failures that humans make.

If the failures are in places that humans can easily and reliably handle (which is the case now) then people won't trust these systems. If the failures are created by the software not being able to handle basic driving tasks and wouldn't normally happen with a person driving then this is a huge problem with the system. A system that repeatedly drives at a lane divider repeatedly is not something people should trust.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/03/dashcam-video-shows-tes...

Right. The trolley problem assumes vehicles can make optimal split second decisions while right now Tesla can't even tell the difference between the road and a lane divider reliably.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/03/dashcam-video-shows-tes...

> Anyone working on logistics already heavily relies on it.

Care to elaborate? Sources?

> What's important is that the systems are not overall worse than humans alone and that they continuously improve.

I work in the industry. These systems are currently far worse than humans and the edge cases are numerous. We have so much brain power and years of experience that the heurustics that a L2+ system uses to make decisions are not really comparible and are far more simplistic and much worse. We can handle new situations, these cars cannot. The fact that you are making this comparison between human heurustics and the vehicle system just highlights that people don't understand the issues.

Mix that in with the amount of overpromising and overselling that Tesla is doing wrt the abilities of these systems people will be overconfident in them and end up getting complacent leading to accidents.

Tesla's approach to development, release and marketing is not a good way to build safety critical driving systems. Overhyping them to people who don't understand the nuance is my biggest concern.

Exactly. Claiming to be close to solving production problems that haven't been solved in robotics research in nice controlled environments is nuts. Either people at Tesla are so smart they are making many huge breakthroughs in the technology (hint: they're not) or the are exaggerating and lying to sell cars despite the dangers of selling systems based on heuristics that could cost lives.

The problem isn't someone doing exactly this, it's that the Tesla auto pilot is based on a bunch of heuristics and assumptions that if they do not hold on certain stretches of road people may die. It's just not safe enough to claim it's a robust working system which is what Tesla and Musk have pitched and sold it as.

Yeah it's nonsense. Having a separation between my work and personal life is a completely valid reason for having multiple online identities. There are plenty of other valid reasons. Obviously Mark would love us to be constrained to single username so that he can create a more complete profile for selling to advertisers. Data from a real name user is more valuable for correlation with other data sources. This "philosophy" is driven by the bottom line and nothing to do with "integrity".

They're different things with different purposes. Both are useful. This is clickbate.

A lot of tech people seem to be libertarian and don't like paying for public services that might go towards actually helping these people. In my experience people are not really that left wing in the valley when it comes to money.

One problem I see with UBI is that it may just act as a subsidy for companies like Amazon and Uber allowing them to pay their lowest paid workers even less.

It deserves an investigation at least to decide if it's worth exploring further and how complicit the company may have been. The courts can then decide and they may or may not side with your point of view. That's how it works in America.

Throwing out cases because they are difficult to persue or because it may cause trouble for a business is not how a justice system should work.

This goes hand in hand with the culture of "anyone can do anything as long as the have an idea and are willing to work hard" culture of silicon valley. Experience in an area definitely reduces the suffering because you have a better idea where the problems are and know where to most effectivly apply effort.

5) A private company making an ethical choice on what to show on its platform is not responsible for where the discourse moves to but making a difference in the platform they control is a good start and a stance other platforms should take.

> Not giving your kid vaccinations is stupid. But on the scale of "ways you can mess up your kid," it's pretty mild.

Measles and other dangerous diseases returning to the US after being iradicated is not a small issue. This effects other children's lives. It's selfish and harmful and we have a safe reliable solution.

People have become complacent to the horrible effects of diseases because of the protections vaccines have provided them over the last 50+ years.

> Overselling is a dangerous strategy that can be counterproductive. Both companies and researchers publish videos of robots doing tasks, but sometimes they fail to point out the limitations of the technology or that those results were achieved in lab conditions.

This. Autonomous vehicles are the most obvious example of the overselling of robotics with the inevitable extending of the timelines that were promised a few years ago. The more we learn the less likely it seems we'll get AVs anytime soon, although anyone actually working in the area knew this already.

People were selling the idea of AV production systems that can solve hard robotics problems that havn't been solved in research in the most benign conditions. This was all driven by hype and money and it doesn't seem like there was much of a downside to those overpromising. Unless this changes and people are held accountable for their overselling then we'll keep seeing this behavior.

It has a genuine negative impact on anyone trying to do something that is actually possible and useful as their pitch will seem underwhelming compared to all the noise being generated by the people overpromising.

Agreed but it does counter the 40k per person number quite effectivly and, to your point, shows that spending money does actually help some people to not be homeless, which were two big points in the previous comenters thesis beyond the anecdotes.

> The city spends more than $40,000/yr per homeless person,

That's an absurd myth. The city spends about ~$3,800 per person per year. Or $10.41 a day. Your story is based on incorrect data.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...

> Neither is a permissive attitude that leaves the homeless, primarily the mentally ill and hard core drug addicts in the SF case, to literally rot on the streets.

No, I'd invest in helping them with the wealth in SF rather than criminalizing people for trying to survive. 60% of the city agreed by voting for Prop C.

Right. Just because you something makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean someone should be arrested for it. Criminalizing homelessness and poverty is not a humane solution and we already have laws for actual crimes.

Counter anecdote since that's what you're doing: I have lived in downtown Oakland for 5 years and have had zero issues with any kind of crime.

Statistics are more valuable than the weight either of us put on our good/bad personal experiences.

Mixing up homelessness and adiction with serious violent crime in a single statement and saying both need to be dealt with by increasing policing is an very imprecise and inefficient way of addressing different issues.

A fine is supposed to be a deterrent so it needs to be high enough to deter.

> If you're stealing $50 then a $150 fine is a deterrent even if you're a billionaire, because the expected value if you're caught is -$100, which has nothing at all to do with how much money you have.

This is not true if you see $50 and $150 dollars as basically the same amount when compared to your overall wealth. Would you care about a 2 cent fine for overrunning you time on a 1 cent parking space?

Not sure why this is being downvoted beyond just not liking unions? It's literally a fact. Members decide what their collective goals are. In cases like nursing in California under staffing and long hours are the issues they are most concerned about above salary.

It happens, especially to at-will employees. Once you're seen as a organizer/instigator other reasons can be found to remove you if necessary. Even if that employee is reinstated it takes time and the message has been sent to others that organizing could cost you your job.

The point is that forming a union is a bumpy ride, even when the majority of employees see a need. Management will work hard to stop it and employees have to do a lot of work to make it happen. Unions won't organize at places where people are generally happy because the chances of success are low.

Right. It's very hard to organize places where people are not being treated poorly. It's risky to unionize as people can loose their jobs in the process if the bosses find out before they have union protections so people will only take the chance if the conditions are bad.

Unions don't try to organize happy work places because they know how hard it is to do even when people are treated poorly. It's not worth the effort as people are not motivated to organize. Suggesting that people are going through the long hard process of unionizing for no real reason suggests a lack of understanding of the process and the pushback from management that happens.

People don't unionize for the fun of it. It's a long hard slog that often fails.

Salary isn't the only point of negotiation. Unions can protect people against safety concerns, long hours or lack of vacation etc. or whatever issues are a problem at a company. A union is a group of people organizing to define how they want to work and salary structure doesn't have to part of the contract if it's not an issue to the workers. The union members get to define what is important to them.

Maybe, but given that it was the opening to the comment with no reference to anything else it just seems like an unqualified opinion in the vein of the comenters criticisms of the post. It's gone now so I guess OP agreed.

Haha no worries. Enjoy your day.