as the comment chain below highlights, autonomous driving AI is completely different from LLMs. Computer vision and control theory have made big improvements because of machine learning, do you despise this too?
Comment on Death of beloved neighborhood cat sparks outrage against robotaxis in San Francisco
VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yet another reason to despise AI. Animals deserve to be safe too. We’ve already taken so much from them as it is.
5gruel@lemmy.world 3 days ago
deathbird@mander.xyz 2 days ago
It is a bit frustrating how these different technologies are bunched under the same inaccurate moniker.
Auli@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Then keep the car inside. Outdoor cats are not safe and get killed by cars animals.
EtherWhack@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yes, keep the car inside.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 2 days ago
Please, keep your car in their car bedroom at all times.
reddifuge@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Ai has a proven track record of causing less accidents, and killing far fewer animals per km traveled than the average driver.
majster@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
link from the article latimes.com/…/woman-gets-millions-after-getting-d…
People get jail time, what do we do with machines?
Kissaki@feddit.org 3 days ago
Hold the manufacturers and operators (specifically for company operated) accountable?
The machine is the product, not the operator. We don’t jail classic cars either. We hold their operators accountable. The one in control. Self driving has a shift of who is in control - now “indirectly”.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 days ago
if only that were the truth.
these companies will attempt to settle for bottom dollar or drag it out so long you’ll have to go homeless to pay the legal fees.
there is no justice left in the legal system. justice isn’t just blind anymore, she’s been decapitated.
Auli@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Accountable for what killing a stray cat? Come on if you don’t want your cat to be hit keep it inside. I don’t get how people think it’s ok for a cat to wander. Even though it’s probably illegal.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 days ago
here you dropped this
your figures (though I doubt them) don’t include the skew of driver vs driverless vehicles. of course driverless cars are 92% less likely to have an accident involving animals. that’s because driverless cars account for less than 1% of the entire vehicle population.
but it does randomly hallucinate.
reddifuge@lemmy.world 3 days ago
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 days ago
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 3 days ago
the AI in cars is not the same as the AI in LLMs, it’s not programmed to guess its way to a conclusion.
that being said, it’s still far from perfect, and shouldn’t be on the road yet.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 days ago
teslas make some pretty crazy assumptions (hallucinations).
ever see the one where it sees pedestrians in a cemetery?
or how about the accidents where they veer off the road because the lines were missing.
magguzu@midwest.social 3 days ago
Public transportation does this too and isn’t controlled by some company trying to make graphs go up
Canonical_Warlock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Don’t worry. A lot of places are also trying to privatize their public transportation.
ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 3 days ago
There are also a lot of people out there that will intentionally swerve to hit an animal. Mark Rober made a video a long time ago where 6% of drivers went out of their way to hit animals that were just chilling on the shoulder.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Fp7flAWMA
1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
fucked up that people do that.
Auli@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
And have a nice habit of being turned off before the accident so the AI didn’t cause the accident. Numbers are bullshit.
sobchak@programming.dev 3 days ago
I believe these cars drive on the same roads all day, whereas people are likely to be driving in and out of areas these systems are not familiar with. I suppose a good comparison would be of a taxi driver that only operates in the same area as the driverless cars, if that exists.