165
The weaponization of Waymo
(www.bloodinthemachine.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
165 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
72646 readers
3696 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Death traps? Can you elaborate?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YwN5hU5PYWs Sure, this wasn't that dangerous, but knowing that you gotta call Customer Service to get the car to stop in case of emergency is pretty bad design, safety wise.
Doesn't sound too death trappy. Driverless vehicles hold the potential to save many thousands of lives. We should demand the best in the process of transition, and there's no reason to be corporate schills, but fear mongering this technology only slows progress.
I agree that it would be safer eventually, but also, testing in vitae might not be the good way to do it. Sure, testing in prod is fast, but there is a reason we don't do it.
Closed course testing has been near perfect. At some point it needs to be real world tested. It's arguably already far safer than human performance. That seems like a reasonable threshold for prod testing. If this were a vaccine it would likely be on schedule already.
Assuming that what you say is true about closed course testing (and that they truly made an effort to replicate the dynamism of a city), why do they gotta test this snack dab in the middle of cities (where we should rather invest in public transportations anyway) instead of, I don't know, some trails in the woods, where there would also be a bunch of unknowns?
All this reeks of "gotta go to market ASAP to please the investors / shareholders above the rest of humanity" to me.
I work in an area adjacent to autonomous vehicles, and the primary reason has to do with data availability and stability of terrain. In the woods you're naturally going to have worse coverage of typical behaviors just because the set of observations is much wider ("anomalies" are more common). The terrain being less maintained also makes planning and perception much more critical. So in some sense, cities are ideal.
Some companies are specifically targeting offs road AVs, but as you can guess the primary use cases are going to be military.