I’ve never heard this twist being done before. Good or bad thing ?
The company also announced it is rolling out driverless, unsupervised Robotaxis in Austin. However, questions have been raised about the move, as videos showcased that the Robotaxi was being followed by a trailing car driven by humans as a possible monitor vehicle.
Wow, not good !
Hope there is video of the incident and it is released to the public.
So, if you were expecting someone in Manila with a sim rig driving an unmanned taxi in San Francisco, we’re sorry to disappoint. It’s safe to assume that all of its robotaxis use actual software and not a dystopian version of a Mechanical Turk. Still, the overseas assistance raised several concerns to the panel. The Senate pointed out potential cybersecurity and latency issues, as well as the qualifications of said remote operators
So , I’d like to know how often these autonomous cabs need assistance from a remote human operator ? Can the remote operator initiate a takeover at anytime ? I’d have a problem with that.
I’m on the fence if I should care if the remote human is in Mississippi or the Philippines.
The US is banning Chinese EVs, but Waymo still using them.
I guess they bough them before the ban?
All very interesting in regards to Waymo and the ban.
Then there is this about Ford asking the administration for
joint venture ?
Better to co-opt now, than lose complete market share later. They see the tea leaves, even if many here do not.
And on a related note…doesn’t look good for US in this technology (EVs and AVs)
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in an episode of The Verge’s “Decoder” podcast that “the Chinese are the 700-pound gorilla in the EV industry.”
“There’s no real competition from Tesla, GM, or Ford with what we’ve seen from China. It is completely dominating the EV landscape globally and more and more outside of China,” he said in September.
Waymo Gets Grilled by Lawmakers Over Chinese Cars and Overseas Workers - Business Insider.
Good summary article on AV regulations.
And summary of issues with Texas recently passed law. Note many of this issues
are probably relevant to the uber users in the world today in regards to privacy.
Senate Bill 2205 allows driverless vehicles to operate in the state as long as the vehicle is:
With the new law, Texas joins a growing list of states that officially permit driverless cars on public roads, setting up the stage for the eventual rollout of autonomous vehicles to consumers. But while the technology has remarkable potential, it also raises significant privacy and security concerns. Autonomous vehicles are data-gathering machines and may log historic and real-time geolocation data, which will likely be highly coveted for its ability to reflect individuals’ lifestyles and purchasing habits. Cybersecurity is another major issue – for example, how will collected data be stored or transmitted? In addition, vulnerabilities may allow hackers to hijack and steal self-driving cars or interfere
with their safety.
New Texas Law Explicitly Allows Driverless Cars | Data Law Insights.
I wonder if insurance companies look at those vehicles as a very different risk profile for insurance sake than self driven ones.
“Traditional insurers treat a Tesla like any other car, and AI like any other driver. But a car that sees 360 degrees, never gets drowsy, and reacts in milliseconds can’t be compared to a human.”
Interesting, I guess they do look at it as a different risk profile. Though this seems to be for cars with self driving modes that are owned by consumers and sitting behind the wheel. I was actually thinking about the self driving taxi’s when I asked the question - though the answer is the same - the insurers (or at least this one) give it a different risk profile.
I saw that about a month ago and thought that’s a great benefit
for Tesla owners and marketing point for Tesla.
Of course the other Electrek article questions the validity of FSD being less accident prone. That article claimed it had four times more accidents than a human. And then there are some rumblings that Tesla is not self reporting
accidents accurately.
Be interesting to watch how this all plays out.
In this case, assuming Lemonade is getting the raw and unfiltered data from the vehicles, then they might actually be able to determine the differences and recognize any trends.
That article was for Robotaxi accidents, not the general population. If you look into it, you’ll find Waymo has comparable rates as does taxi and uber drivers. So don’t believe the clickbait hit piece.
Okay, but isn’t robotaxi using the latest and greatest upgraded version of
FSD ? And remember these accidents are in a heavily geo-mapped region
that has been extensively processed for AI. The general population driving
area does not have that luxury.
I’ve got to think the software streams for FSD and robotaxi share a lot
of the same code.
That’s not what I’ve seen. Can you provide us with a link that
shows that ?
Not sure it’s clickbait at this point. They cite numbers and miles driven.
Why do you think taxi/uber drivers have different more costly insurance?
© 1999-2025 CoogFans.com