Chronological based on episode airing date, or date depicted in that episode?
BlameThePeacock
joined 2 years ago
The first argument is a non-starter, professions have come and gone for all of human history. Where did all the people who raised and trained horses go when cars came out? Where did all the people go who made buggies and coaches? What about people who lost their jobs to construction equipment like excavators? What about switchboard operators at telephone companies?
The economy will re-organize itself to adapt to the newly available labour. Don't get me wrong, individuals are going to be absolutely devastated by this, but not replacing someone who's doing a job that can be automated is no different than having them dig a ditch and fill it back in. It's never a good idea to hold back technology just to keep jobs around. This path leads to the Amish.
Liability for accidents has already been sorted out for 100% autonomous cars, it's the vehicle manufacturer's fault. For most of the current ones on the road, they are modified existing vehicles, so the manufacturer would be said to be the self-driving company (like Waymo) though once the software is built in from the factory it will be on Ford or Nissan or whatever likely in partnership with a software vendor. They may insure themselves, but likely only against catastrophic situations rather than day-to-day accidents.
They are definitely considering cyberattacks.
The benefit to self-driving cars is self-evident though. There's no argument that they wouldn't be better than human drivers in theory. Not only for safety, but for traffic, parking, cost, etc.
The only thing holding them back a this point is refinement. They have already proven that in at least three cities, they are mile for mile safer than human driven vehicles.
Waymo has gone from 1 city, to 3, to now pushing out to 11 in a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if it doubled 5 times again in the next 10 years. That would put it in just under 200 cities by 2035.
The first iPhone only sold a million units in the first year, but two years later there were 25 million iPhones and they hit the 200 million mark by year 5.
Your example about Netflix proved my point. Naysayers said it wouldn't work, but they are now the leader.
I'm happy to wait and see, I fully expect them to arrive in my city in the next decade.
You've cast double on my links, but you're clearly too young to actually remember these things happening. I'm not. I do remember lots of people laughing and dismissing all three as never going to be for normal consumers (I'm not old enough to remember them laughing at cars)
You're also clearly not paying attention to this industry if you think Tesla is a leader. You've only caught what made the news in the UK.
Waymo is far and away the leader, having hundreds of cars driving around daily with nobody behind the steering wheel.
Mobileye(NA and Europe) and Baidu(China) are also actively driving around without drivers in certain places.
The only place Tesla has them fully autonomous is in the factory as far as I know.
Then the gang is going to have to take out both the self-driving car company AND the cellphone company at the same time. It's not just one getting the data, and again it's going to get noticed immediately if cars start going missing and data is being blocked. They may get ahold of a few dozen cars if they try to do it quickly, but they won't get even hundreds.
The battery may worth something, but it's a lot of effort to steal a car just to get a $15k battery. Criminal gangs aren't stealing 5 year old Kia Niros for resale across the globe, they generally target vehicles worth 3-10x that much.
There's no "source code" for self driving cars in the sense that a video game has source code. The cars have some normal code yes, but the self-driving portion is a trained machine learning model that is essentially a black box. It takes millions of compute hours on high end graphics cards along with millions of hours of driving data to generate a new version of that model. Stealing the existing driving model still won't make it work in West Africa or the Middle East. Stealing the training data wouldn't help get it driving there either, they'd have to collect millions of hours of local training data for each destination.
It would be easier for these gangs to start their own self-driving company.
I remember them saying the latter three myself....
So yes they did.
The CEO of Microsoft laughed at Apple when they released the iPhone saying people wouldn't use it because it was too expensive and didn't have a keyboard.
https://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306 1985 article from Newsweek called "Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana"
These are just two easily locatable links, I personally remember people saying these things wouldn't catch on.
I also remember people saying 3D TVs would catch on, and they clearly didn't.
Cutting the wires will work, but it's already recorded it's location and transmitted that data by the point you get to that point.
There's no way that the self-driving car companies won't require regular check ins on the network to function in self-driving mode. You can't even play many single player video games these days without an internet connection.
Essentially it won't be a self-driving car once you've stolen it, and it may not even be a regular car either because some of the proposed models don't even have steering wheels or pedals. Even if you did crack the software, it's not going to be loaded with any sort of relevant self-driving functionality for <insert 3rd world country where they don't check vehicle registration here>, it won't have maps, it won't be trained on the local signs, traffic lights, road markings, etc. it may not even operate on the correct side of the road.
Why would the onboard software ever allow (or even support the ability) to disable connectivity?
The tracking doesn't even need to happen on the vehicle itself, given that they're likely to use cellular connections the tracking from the cell company can locate it.
My point is that there's no benefit to stealing a self-driving car over a regular car, so why would these gangs switch? None of the self-driving features will work when it can't connect to the network, and none of the extra parts have any sort of resale value separate from their intended use. They may as well continue stealing regular cars.
People said the same thing about cars taking over for horses.
People said the same thing about computers.
People said the same thing about the internet.
People said the same thing about cell phones.
The Stuxnet worm was created by the US government likely with hundreds of people working on it for half a decade or more, not some random hacker group.
There are ways to protect self cars, giving them a command to drive somewhere isn't inherently dangerous. The commands to send them to a destination will not be able to control HOW the car gets there, that will all be done locally on the vehicle self-driving software. It won't be possible to tell the car "go drive into this building" since the driving software simply won't allow for such a request remotely.
The most impactful thing that hackers could do is tell all the vehicles to pull over and stop where they are, which would cause problems of course, but it's hardly the end of the world. Essentially a form of DDOS attack on cars, but it would be detected almost instantly and likely the vehicles with occupants could just override it locally.
What exactly is a hacker group going to do with a fleet of cars that can certainly still be located by the corporation that owns them since they're literally connected to cellphone (and probably satellite these days) networks all the time. There's not that much value for a hacker in obtaining a self-driving car that can't drive by itself because it's not connected to it's network. The resale value for the fancy sensors and chips inside them is pretty much zero.
Again if people want unattended cars they can do this a lot easier than hacking a massive corporation to get access to them.
view more: next ›
Pixar Mommy