Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 76
9/28/2024, 9:21:43 PM
X
In reply to:
John Berry (aniccia.bsky.social)
@aniccia
·
408d
@Linda__Stevens @GaryMarcus And there is no way to make this safe for public roads, as has been clear from videos of it in use for years, eg from Zoox:
John Berry (aniccia.bsky.social)
@aniccia
·
1398d
@PhilKoopman @EricPaulDennis @AlexRoy144 Sure, but is an AV "L4" if it routinely depends on humans to 'guide' it with ~fine grain control through situations?

FWIW, Zoox's video example requires the vehicle to commit to the teleassistant's strategy before the human has determined the entire path.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…
John Berry (aniccia.bsky.social)
@aniccia
·
408d
@Linda__Stevens @GaryMarcus Yes, Waymo has human teloperators who help their robots. When that fails, they dispatch humans to rescue the robot and passengers. Many videos of this. This year, a Waymo robot drove through a red light causing a VRU crash in downtown SF bc telops didn't see the light. Not safe.
Linda Stevens 🌎
@Linda__Stevens
·
408d
@GaryMarcus @aniccia I also wonder if humans help out in Waymos case like they did in Amazon’s no cashier stores. 🤷🏻‍♀️
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
408d
@aniccia I would say as i did that they are *testing* genuine autonomy, but that without information about how much tele-op etc is going on we can’t fully assess how close they are to having it.

I would say they are is still a long way away, even in the tested cities, and that they…
John Berry (aniccia.bsky.social)
@aniccia
·
408d
@GaryMarcus Whoa, SAE J3016 calls Waymo's type of system "cooperative" and specifically warns against calling it "autonomous." Waymo's system is closer to an exceptionally good ADAS with a so unacceptably bad ADS that it depends on human assistance to handle ordinary conditions.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
408d
It is astonishing to me that some people still have not learned the difference between genuinely autonomous vehicles (which Waymo is actively testing in some warm-weather cities in CA, AZ, and TX) and driver-assist (like Tesla FSD, which must have a human in the loop at all…

The statement 'Can you spell out the logic of “no way to make it safe”?' is a request for clarification in a discussion about the safety of autonomous vehicles. The tone is inquisitive and seeks to understand the reasoning behind a previous assertion that autonomous vehicles cannot be made safe for public roads. This statement is part of a broader conversation about the safety and operational capabilities of autonomous vehicles, which is a public issue involving technology, safety, and regulation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is a neutral request for information, adhering to the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by seeking clarification, which aligns with the principle of using words to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by asking for an explanation rather than making a personal attack, adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]