Based on what I know, yes. Why would they want to do it with the latencies involved? It’s not a reliable solution, so it’s not used in any safety critical path.
> In addition to allowing emergency crews to access and move vehicles, Cruise says that it is also providing its own remote "assistance advisors" the ability to conditionally route its Chevrolet Bolts. This means that if law enforcement directs Cruise to route its vehicles away from an emergency scene, those advisors will maneuver the cars in a way that satisfies the request. The AV provider also says that it has enhanced the ability of these remote operators to clear a scene, should an issue arise.[1]
Can you explain how this supports your assertions? Because this doesn’t say they can take over control of the vehicle or prevent an emergency in the first place. They clear the cars by plotting a new path.
You seemed very certain that I was completely incorrect. My point is that you should consider that you might not have all the details and if you haven't actually worked at an AV company then you do not know what capabilities are granted to remote operators in emergency and non-emergency situations.
"Back in the Waymo office, a “remote assist driver” can view the feeds of eight of the vehicle’s external- and
internal-facing cameras and a dashboard showing what the software is “thinking,” such as if it is preparing to
stop, or the position of other objects around it. The remote drivers can monitor multiple vehicles at once. If a
vehicle gets stuck, the remote assist driver can tell the car how to drive around a construction site or some
other obstacle by using their computer to manually draw a trajectory for the car to follow."
You are still incorrect and unable to prove anything you claimed. The burden of proof is on you when you confidently say they can "take over controls".
I wasn't proving anything. The fact is there are articles explaining that remote operators can take over the controls in an emergency situation and that's exactly what you were denying. In any case, this discussion has run its course. You can continue to believe autonomous cars can not be remotely controlled and I'll believe what I wrote since I'm pretty sure it's correct. Every AV company has emergency procedures for remote takeover and it makes sense that they would because current ML tools and techniques are not good enough for self-driving cars and other kinds of autonomous applications.
Hmm, no. No article explains remote operator can take over controls. There's an important distinction between taking over and instructing a car what to do. You don't seem to get that.
> You can continue to believe autonomous cars can not be remotely controlled and I'll believe what I wrote since I'm pretty sure it's correct. Every AV company has emergency procedures for remote takeover
If your proof is "I believe these companies are lying" and nothing else, then this is not a discussion worth having.
