472
Death of beloved neighborhood cat sparks outrage against robotaxis in San Francisco
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
472 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
76635 readers
2390 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
My numbers are per km traveled, as stated. Capita is irrelevant.
Hallucinations aren't random, they are programmed in. They reward LLMs for guessing. Driving AI is not trained this way.
Nice misinformation and lack of understanding on what capita is.
This is really basic stuff.
Maybe if you didn't regurgitate criticisms of LLMs as being applicable to car driving AI you could construct an actual argument.
Driving AI has been shown to be very flawed (e.g. driving into a loony-tunes-esque painted canvas) and I'd be willing to bet that hitting small animals is also something they can't avoid as reliably because it's just not a profitable decision to do that, and capitalism-ho
You don't have to bring up hallucinations (irrelevant to driving AI that's an LLM thing, for driving AI that'd just be plain unreliability) or start insulting people because you don't like the (mutually unsourced) statistics claims.
I love how mad you get when you realize how wrong you are.
Lash out more.
no thanks, I don't feed trolls but I do block them.
"Could I be wrong in my assertion...? NO! It's people trolling me!"
Did you know self-driving cars have to report every deviation to USDOT? That includes incidents like if a driverless truck is driving at 55mph by itself on an otherwise deserted and clear stretch of rural highway and a bird flies out in front of it, that ends up on a spreadsheet somewhere. Could your driving skills survive that level of scrutiny?