He would immediately be stopped by a court, which would have its ruling immediately stayed by a different court, until the Supreme Court puts an end to the case permanently.

The courts, in totality as a branch of government, have been a rubber-stamp. You can point to a couple of times when they've tried to save face by making a show of ruling against him, one of the only times being the tariffs case. Lo and behold, even after that case, there are still Trump tariffs in effect.

The Supreme Court has been a joke since before I was born, but the mask is really off now as far as who these guys are in the tank for and what they're there to do. And it isn't enforce laws. It's to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the leader.

I was contemplating whether or not I would trade facial recognition for bus service, because currently there is no bus service in my city.

I do, however, get facial-recognized by every neighbor's door when I step outside in the morning, and again continually at work, and again at the store, then by the Flock camera when I go to the park... no bus service to speak of, though.

"Pausing" is no longer a safe option on the freeway by complete coincidence.

Well teeeeeeeeechnially it is, when the reality is that a bunch of FOMO crazies drive up stocks of key companies in the hope to getting rich.

But that's not "the stock market". That's just a couple of edge case. "The Stock Market" itself is honest and based on reality and there's 10s of thousands of legitimate ways to invest when you're not touching NVIDIA, Elon Musk Ltd, or Gamestop.

No they aren't. "Remote control" is used only in disengage scenarios. This always results in the ride pausing while a person takes over. Go look up how often that happens, and maybe read that transcript again.

The centre in the Philippines has zero access to drive the car. Zero. None. No remote control function what so ever. That is done from either Arizona or Michigan. Maybe read that transcript again.

I don't want idiots on Slashdot, but we can't always get what we want. Case in point: your post.

Except all those self-driving vehicules [sic] drive far better than the average human. They may not drive as well as the *best* human, but that's just you colossally missing the point.

Your school bus example is a good one. There's a reason why those signs exist: humans zooming past those signs have a tendency to turn kids into a red streak smooshed into the bitumen, whereas Waymos have yet to hit a person in any condition.

Rather than dreaming of a future of self driving cars, maybe reflect on a past where you didn't pay attention in statistics class.

*time. Hard time. Not has hard as posting on Slashdot before the coffee has kicked in.

Since when is a felony associated with hard crime? I mean I know one guy who has 34 felony convictions and has never seen the inside of a jail cell.

It's not even a case of "software working this way" as much as it is a case of "Buying" or "Purchasing" isn't limited in any way to the act of getting goods. Historically the term has very much been used for both services and IP. And goods, services, and IP have always had contractual components.

Some lawyer convinced their stupid client to part with some money I guess.

It's more than just the right of first sale; with software that is licensed via server-side communication, nothing prevents the company from terminating your authorization for any reason, and you have basically no recourse at that point, other than to sue.

There's a lot wrong with software in the modern era.

The control system responded to a combination of inputs it had never seen before that resulted in a low pH condition by increasing acid flow to lower it further.

That is close enough for me. All those weights between layers result in a non-linear failure mode which is not acceptable in the real world, rather like Elon's self-driving cars ramming firetrucks.

As Cringley points out, all they've done is throw horsepower at it. It's like the old argument in physics, if we knew every particle's position and velocity we could calculate everything forever. But you can't know that so the whole concept if flawed.

It is fun to watch the flailing though. "But it's got to work, I've spent Billions!"

You're treating the current law as a standard handed down from on high, incontrovertible and guaranteed-correct, which must be applied verbatim. And, indeed, laws must be applied as written... but that doesn't mean the laws are perfect forever. Laws are written within a context, and when the context changes, the laws have to change.

In a world where all cars are driven by humans, if you want to protect highway workers one way to do it is to attach serious prison time to killing one and to publicize that fact loudly so that all of the drivers know that they should be especially cautious around highway workers, even more than they would around other sorts of pedestrians (let's put aside the moral debate about whether we actually should protect highway workers more than other pedestrians).

In a world where some cars are driven by software systems, that strategy doesn't really work -- as your question correctly points out -- but the right conclusion isn't "Therefore self-driving cars shouldn't be allowed", or "Therefore we must identify some scapegoat human at the company to put in prison". The right conclusion is "Therefore we need a different kind of regulation to keep highway workers safe from self-driving cars". What should that be? I can think of lots of possibilities, both pro-active (e.g. require self-driving vehicles to demonstrate in rigorous testing that their vehicles stay far from highway workers, with whatever minimum distance you want to specify) and reactive (severe penalties, up to heavy fines and/or immediate loss of permission to operate). The point is that the law should choose an approach that works with the new context.

And? They still drive 10% better than the average driver. And I realize that number is just an example, not intended to be accurate, but I still feel like I should point out that, statistically, it's too low.

The fact that the self-driving cars will all concentrate their worst behaviors in the same regions of the space of all driving conditions doesn't change the fact that, on average, they're quite a bit safer than human drivers. This wouldn't be true if the roads somehow changed so that the problematic-for-self-driving scenarios predominated, but they don't.

So you consider most human drivers too dangerous to be on public roads.

You're taking a binary position (too dangerous to be on public roads), so you should expect people to evaluate your position in a binary way. Your other position, trying to position Waymo safety within the wide continuum of driver safety, is more nuanced.

My position is that if they're statistically safer than average human drivers, which makes them far safer than the worst human drivers on the road, then replacing human-driven cars with self-driving cars makes the roads safer. This is straightforwardly obvious. It doesn't mean the companies shouldn't be held accountable for their failures, and certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect them to to continue working on improvements.

This might work when there is a simple, easy search that can verify a fact. But that's often not the case. In my experience most cases of hallucination are cases where the LLM needs a fact mid-response, and the fact check requires both a non-trivial query and complex evaluation of the response data, sometimes involving judgement calls. When that happens, the LLM just gets lazy and goes with its guess rather than doing the check.

I'm speaking in the context of advanced models, mind, not the kind of thing that was available in 2022, nor the kind of thing that is available in Google search's limited-capability model, or open source models. Those are far more prone to hallucination. I won't say that, say, Claude Opus never hallucinates, because it does... but the hallucinations are common only when the models is being pushed hard, operating near the limits of its capacity, which makes it prone to taking shortcuts.

https://www.wesh.com/article/w...

That was easily refuted.