[cesarb]

That's the promise of self-driving cars.

Every time an issue is found, no matter how minor, it's fixed and updated everywhere. From now on, every car of that model (and future models, and related models) will no longer have that problem. Several passes of that improvement cycle, and self-driving cars become safer (and more efficient/comfortable/etc) than human drivers. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

[bushbaba]

If you've ever built software, you'll know that regressions are all too common. Especially when AI/ML is involved.

It's likely they patch this and cause 2 other bugs in the process.

[tstrimple]

> If you've ever built software, you'll know that regressions are all too common. Especially when AI/ML is involved.

"AI/ML" has delivered far more complete testing criteria than any "QA expert" has. It's absolutely crazy to me the number of people who defend the status quo in software testing when software quality has been on the decline for over a decade. But sure. "AI/ML" is the problem, not shit developers who never considered that angle in the first place.

[ishtanbul]

So underappreciated. The article writes as if its some kind of sign that waymos just aren't ready. But human drivers are not improving at all.