As to whether this article is really a stealth advertisement for GM's Super Cruise technology, well... yeah, it probably is. But I still found it informative as to the current state of driver assistance systems. I was not aware that the cruise control, lane keeping, and automatic braking systems were generally completely independent of each other.

Well, that point is most likely lost on someone who dies in a crash of these cars. IE, the difference is big from some viewpoints but irrelevant from others.

I think we can see the point where objections to self-driving cars start to become strong. It's not some cooked-up version of the "trolley car problem" but a situation where a self-driving car does something a human observer naturally interprets as "wrong" and "dumb", does it in a way that kills someone and the designers give the answer "sorry, not a mistake, just a necessary design compromise. This is still, on-average safer than a human". I think this would produce a strong emotional effect regardless of any "generally safer" assertion.

A person is dead mainly due to the presence of a driver-assist system, this is unquestionable.

All I'm saying is that the distinction is important from the perspective of someone who wants to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of someone who is in charge of making the laws and regulations to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of the people voting for those lawmakers.

But, hey. I'm not in the guy's head :)

I think that full autonomy (level 4 and 5) is an AI-complete problem and a true solution is many, many years away. On the other hand, I'm not an expert (I'm doing an AI PhD but on a different subject) so I may be overestimating the difficulties involved.

One problem with reporting on autonomous driving is that a lot of the technology is proprietary and the research takes place behind closed doors, so it's very hard to understand exactly where the state of the art is. We're left with the announcements from the companies who actually sell it, that will inevitably tend to be overinflated.

As the technology becomes more common, I guess we'll all end up adjusting our expectations, one way or another. I'm looking forward to your future articles :)

• Pedestrians shorter than approximately 3.2 ft. (1 m) or taller than approx- imately 6.5 ft. (2 m)

• Pedestrians wearing oversized clothing (a rain coat, long skirt, etc.), mak- ing their silhouette obscure

• Pedestrians who are carrying large baggage, holding an umbrella, etc., hiding part of their body

• Pedestrians who are bending forward or squatting

• Pedestrians who are pushing a stroller, wheelchair, bicycle or other vehi- cle

• Groups of pedestrians which are close together

• Pedestrians who are wearing white and look extremely bright

• Pedestrians in the dark, such as at night or while in a tunnel

• Pedestrians whose clothing appears to be nearly the same color or brightness as their surroundings

• Pedestrians near walls, fences, guardrails, or large objects

• Pedestrians who are on a metal object (manhole cover, steel plate, etc.) on the road

• Pedestrians who are walking fast

• Pedestrians who are changing speed abruptly

• Pedestrians running out from behind a vehicle or a large object

• Pedestrians who are extremely close to the side of the vehicle (outside rear view mirror, etc.)

This isn’t fluffing up phone features, it’s presenting a system in such a way that key, known deficiencies that maim or kill are buried.

The people impacted by this trusted the system based on manufacturer claims, which unfortunately were and remain horseshit.

The real world is where all your independent worldviews are tested, simultaneously and integrated. And where metaphor shear may well prove fatal.

________________________________

Notes:

1. A not-necessarily accurate worldview itself, though I'll leave that to the cog-psych types to explore in depth.