Submitted 5 months ago by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/05/san-francisco-waymo-kitkat-cat-death
While our vehicle was stopped to pick up passengers, a nearby cat darted under our vehicle as it was pulling away,
There are plenty of assholes who will aim for cats while driving. This, at least, can likely be remedied fleet-wide and permanently with a software fix. These people are just looking for an excuse to rail against automation— as if a human driver would have definitely seen the cat.
Also, keep cats inside.
I can’t wait to see your take when automation takes the largest blue collar workforce in the country and renders them as relics of a bygone era. Truckers are going to be displaced when long-haul truck shipping is fully replaced by automated vehicles. After that, they’ll be making huge trouble - rightfully so.
Perhaps we should force cars out so wagon makers can have their jobs back?
Perhaps we should force out wagons and horses to bring in a new age of rickshaws?
My take is, your take is pretty simple-minded.
This, at least, can likely be remedied fleet-wide and permanently with a software fix.
Oh? That seems like a pretty big assumption. Even if the company themselves said that a software update could fix running over a living creature, I would be skeptical.
These people are just looking for an excuse to rail against automation
Excuse or valid criticism from a negatively affected community? I personally don’t like the idea of driverless cars. I don’t think they are at all necessary to society. I don’t see them as inevitable infrastructure or even a good path forward. I don’t think my stance is unreasonable.
as if a human driver would have definitely seen the cat.
There are plenty of cats in my neighborhood and I’ve never hit one. I’d expect an automated vehicle to drive better than a human, not worse.
You talk about people “railing against automation” but is it more productive to make reflexive excuses for its failures? The fact of the matter (IMO) is that we shouldn’t be beta test subjects for these companies and this new technology.
Also, keep cats inside.
This I can agree with.
Holy shit, its logical fallacy over and over with you.
I didn’t make any assumptions. If they can avoid animals now (which they can, and do), they can improve that detection and/or logic for cats that have disappeared under the car and not reappeared. That’s not even an assumption, much less a “big” one.
And you’ve never hit a cat that was hiding under your car? Are you sure? How can you prove it? Have you gotten out each time you drove away to make sure there wasn’t a cat left behind?
And you’ve driven 93m miles, so you can compare your extensive history and record of driving with waymo’s?
I personally don’t like the idea of driverless cars.
And there is your bias.
No one argues self-driving cars are “needed.” The point is, they are a significant improvement over humans when developed correctly.
How are people this fucking stupid? Really?
I don’t want you to answer that. I would need some rational and intelligent discussion on the subject.
This, at least, can likely be remedied fleet-wide and permanently with a software fix.
You have so much misplaced faith in these massive corporations…
IDK they’ve been pretty on top of this. I remember earlier this year there was a story about them honking all night at there depot and they released a patch to fix it in a couple days. They are trying to get approval to drive to the airport so they’re very sensitive to public opinion and the politicians in charge of approving that.
I have faith that if they keep making errors like this, people won’t give them business. I have faith that they will fix socially unacceptable issues in the name of money.
Kindly fuck off with your misplaced judgement.
“While our vehicle was stopped to pick up passengers, a nearby cat darted under our vehicle as it was pulling away”
I mean, it sucks, but it could’ve happened with a human driver as well… and likely has happened.
I have rode in a Waymo and it shows you all the things it detects on a screen… which includes humans and small animals. It’s not a perfect machine, but it probably is a better driver than a lot of people already and it’s learning every day.
I suppose this incident could get Waymo to put cameras/sensors beneath the car… something that regular car makers won’t think about.
But yeah, it should’ve detected the cat beforehand and waited for it to leave before driving off. Then again, the human passengers didn’t see it either.
Yeah this is the kind of thing where you really need statistics. This sticks out because it’s a prominent example of something new, an autonomous vehicle, doing something notable - killing an animal for the first time (or at least one of the very first well-publicized times on record).
For people’s reaction to this to be that this is because it’s an autonomous vehicle is the same sort of cognitive bias that causes things like, " The first person to get a math problem wrong in class was a girl so it seems like girls are bad at math". When of course it could be that the probability of boys and girls getting problems wrong is equal, and that the girl was simply the first one to get a unlucky roll on the dice of the universe. It could even be that boys are more likely to get problems wrong, and the girl was especially unlucky. It could in fact be that girls are more likely to get problems wrong, too, but this single instance doesn’t give us enough evidence for that. It could be that boys actually have gotten more problems wrong, but we only hear about the girl getting the problem wrong due to sociological biases, or vice versa. Etc.
I get that we shouldn’t trust corporations, and it’s not fun to defend a corporation, but it is important to defend rational thinking. And the rational way to approach this is to employ statistical methods to judge whether a vehicle being autonomous truly makes it a bigger risk to animals in the road or not. Any other line of reasoning is not right for this kind of problem.
Not exactly the first time, given the incident a few years ago where a dog ran into the street and was struck by a Waymo. It got some publicity at the time but was forgotten relatively quickly, presumably since it was quite clear there wasn’t much any driver could have done in that situation. I expect this case will go over similarly, although maybe it will generate a bit more discussion since there are at least some imaginable ways this could have been prevented.
Under- car sensors is a great idea and the kind of innovation required for this tech to reach universal adoption. Waymo is already safer than human drivers IMO but let’s keep going until it’s significantly safer with verifiable data and capabilities humans cannot have. And we have to address its connection to big tech for “safety under fascism” purposes.
I mean, it sucks for the cat and the neighborhood, I’m glad that where I live there are a few very friendly outdoor cats and I’ve always seen people nail the brakes to avoid them the few times they cross the road.
I also understand that autonomous cars kind of need more work, but real drivers also really suck at driving. I wonder if the ire here is more at “who do we blame if no driver”
Also also, I wonder if electric cars are going to cause a lot more issues for outdoor animals who to some extend get trained to listen for a Hrududu which the electric motors don’t make.
Then again, the human passengers didn’t see it either.
The human passengers weren’t responsible for driving the vehicle, their lack of awareness is a feature of getting a taxi ride?
I meant that the Waymo didn’t see it, neither did the passengers, so the cat could’ve been difficult to detect.
A car running over a cat is newsworthy?
Not all stories have to be overtly sensational or outstanding to be newsworthy. It seems there were a substantial amount of people that cared about this cat in the community it resided in. It’s a local story. If it doesn’t hold any meaning to you, that’s fine. Don’t question it’s newsworthiness. The thing you should take away from this is that driverless cars are dangerous and we should ALL question if they should be allowed to be used anywhere.
I’d counter that this is common enough and not notable if human does it to an extent that there is no way to quantify cat death rates to driverless cars vs human driven cars. Like when electric car fires were all the news rage, they were so rare it made the news when any other car fire would not.
the_q@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
People really just don’t give a shit about animals do they?
PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Yea you seem to really hate birds and rodents.
the_q@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
No I hate humans especially those that try to make a cake out of eggs and milk. And since I know you won’t understand what I’m saying because of your poor comprehension skills I mean people that take a statement and concoct some made up bullshit to try and make a point that doesn’t exist. That’s the cake I’m referencing so we’re clear.
glimse@lemmy.world 5 months ago
If they did, they wouldn’t let a cat live outside in a city
the_q@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Yeah all those feral cats should home themselves.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 5 months ago
How about the birds, mice, etc … that a free roaming cat will kill.
Who doesn’t care about animals?