"…may have involved the use of “forked” or modified versions of Comma.ai’s software…"

Or, it could just be scapegoating. Like blaming AI for blowing up a girl's school.

I was curious about what various forks actually do, found a list of some here: https://commaguide.com/compare/

I would dare say most people using Comma have installed a fork. They have a lot more features and car compatibility.

>i am still hesitant of tesla and similarly large players, it seems absolutely wild to me that people are using a fork of a small company's software to drive their car.

Of course they are. This is exactly why we have laws and regulations.

But there are always people who think they know better. George Hotz, the founder of comma.ai, is a very prominent one (despite falling flat on his face more than once). Who do you think is attracted to comma.ai?

“We’ve always been the North Korea of self-driving companies; we are driven by nobody else’s agenda. That’s not going to change.” -George Hotz

"Hotz is clearly a very capable engineer and has accomplished some impressive feats in his young life. However, listening to him speak at Techcrunch Disrupt he also comes off as incredibly arrogant even by Silicon Valley standards. The fundamental problem that I personally have with Hotz and many others in the valley is that they seem to have the idea that just because they can do something, there is no reason not to, regardless of the consequences for others."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2016/11/01/though...

Should it drive someone else's car instead?

Looking at the road; and realizing that your otherwise well-behaved self-driving car is about to do the most obvious mistake and kill you; are two different things.

Humans have a remarkable ability to be apparently cognizant and engaged with tasks, without actually using higher level awareness. One example of this is distracted driving while talking handsfree or lost in thought.

Driver monitoring is better than nothing, but it's not the same thing as an engaged driver.

>This goes to show that any car, be it internal combustion, electric, manually operated or self-driving is still a car, and thus is still capable of inflicting death (among other negatives).

No shit.

>The difference is still just in the frequency of deaths (and with self-driving this is still under debate).

No, the difference is not just frequency. It is, what is the probability I would have made the same mistake. Some of these cases would very unlikely have happened by a (sober) person. Which demonstrates, that we are still dealing with incredibly jagged intelligence.

You can do whatever you want to your car in the US as long as it remains roadworthy, which is basically compliance with FMVSS and state laws. Want to guess what rules don't have much to say about driver assistive technologies?

According to the article: Comma.ai’s own website states that the “performance” of openpilot Adaptive Cruise Control can be affected by “vehicles in the same lane that are not moving.”

Seems the AI view of the road is kind of like the game Cruis'n where the road just moves forward and you can hit things in the road and keep going. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Cruis%27n

To be honest though, I have a Ford with soke form of Blue Cruise. On the highway in certain areas it can pretty much drive itself. It is terrible in traffic, cant see more than one car ahead and slams on the brakes to stop - it freaks me out, I don't drive like that. Systems like these and seemingly Comma's do not appear to have enough information to know what to do in certain situations, it is why the Ford system is limited to certain situations (and even Ford has issues as in this article).

Maybe I'm old, I haven't been super impressed with these self-driving systems and much prefer to be in control myself.