News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lyft Is Said to Seek a Buyer, Without Success by nostrademons on Friday August 19, 2016 @05:22PM (#12323555)
It's interesting that Google decided early on that fully autonomous was the only way to go (because half-awake driver + imperfect computer = accidents), but Tesla, BMW, and Uber are bringing to market semi-autonomous vehicles first.

It occurs to me that their incentives aren't exactly aligned, and aren't aligned with the public. If Tesla or Uber brings out a semi-autonomous vehicle and then lots of accidents occur, it poisons the well for self-driving vehicles. People start associating them with fatal crashes, they shy away from them out of fear, and the status quo reigns. In the status quo, Uber is on top for ridesharing and Tesla/BMW/GM/etc are on top for conventional car purchases, so it all works out for them.

By contrast, Google only succeeds if autonomous vehicles become a real thing that people trust for their everyday transportation needs. They don't have a horse in today's race; either they build a fully-autonomous vehicle or they get nothing.

Methinks we'll see a big PR campaign from Google to make a big public distinction between semi-autonomous and fully-autonomous driving, along with a lobbying campaign to ban semi-autonomous driving. They have to get out ahead of public opinion before lots of accidents happen, otherwise the whole category will be ruined.

Re:Lyft Is Said to Seek a Buyer, Without Success by pulse7 on Friday August 19, 2016 @05:24PM (#12323578)
The best would be "fully autonomous cars" with the ability to take over the control from the automation.
Re:Lyft Is Said to Seek a Buyer, Without Success by nilved on Friday August 19, 2016 @06:35PM (#12324009)
That is the only logical choice. Compare and contrast with autopilot.