|
duTrieux. posted:google's weird insistence that the technology will be perfect from the get-go is worrying autism penetrates all levels
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
duTrieux. posted:reminder that the system only really works on roads that have been extensively mapped and photographed and choreographed where is this weird insistance you're talking about? the development process has been necessarily pretty public and it seems like typical iterative design. its pretty sensible to only be working on meticulously scanned routes at this point to test more important systems like accident and pedestrian avoidance. or do you think they should throw a bunch of complicated systems together and immediately expect them all to work?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Busta Chimes.wav posted:or do you think they should throw a bunch of complicated systems together and immediately expect them all to work? yeah we wouldn't want to hold them to real transportation engineering standards that would just be unreasonable
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:yeah we wouldn't want to hold them to real transportation engineering standards that would just be unreasonable a-bloo a-bloo software engineering allows for cheaper iterations and more flexibility than civil engineering a-bloo-bloo-bloo
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:a-bloo a-bloo software engineering allows for cheaper iterations and more flexibility than civil engineering a-bloo-bloo-bloo lol you might want to find a better thing to point to there than the google car
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:yeah we wouldn't want to hold them to real transportation engineering standards that would just be unreasonable real engineering standards assume drivers are complete idiots right
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Busta Chimes.wav posted:where is this weird insistance you're talking about? quote:In May, Google announced that all its future cars would be totally driver-free, without even a steering wheel. it's not explicitly stated, but complaining about being required to include human controls is a pretty good sign that they envision their system as being able to handle all road situations which would mean that the AI would have to be, yes, perfect. quote:Among other unsolved problems, Google has yet to drive in snow, and Urmson says safety concerns preclude testing during heavy rains. Nor has it tackled big, open parking lots or multilevel garages. The car’s video cameras detect the color of a traffic light; Urmson said his team is still working to prevent them from being blinded when the sun is directly behind a light. Despite progress handling road crews, “I could construct a construction zone that could befuddle the car,” Urmson says.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:real engineering standards assume drivers are complete idiots right or drunk yeah but you don't get to road test around all of those drivers impaired by age and drugs until your poo poo 100% works because of the liability which is why google basically didn't tell anyone about their public road testing for like their first year iirc
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:yeah we wouldn't want to hold them to real transportation engineering standards that would just be unreasonable it seems like they are holding themselves to those standards. what are you getting at here? as far as i know few complicated systems come together and work flawlessly the first time, even with extensive testing of the subsystems and years of development time. H.P. Hovercraft posted:or drunk yeah they did plenty of closed-course testing before actually putting these out on the road and there is always a live driver behind the wheel
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:it's not explicitly stated, but complaining about being required to include human controls is a pretty good sign that they envision their system as being able to handle all road situations which would mean that the AI would have to be, yes, perfect. so they're saying they want their future self driving cars to be self driving. that doesnt seem too weird to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:reminder that the system only really works on roads that have been extensively mapped and photographed and choreographed like if you had it look for lines in the road or somehow magically secured a zillion dollars to paint all roads with sensors or special paint it can instantly recognize you'd literally have people crashing these cars by drawing a fake road into a wall like Wil E. Coyote
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Fabricated posted:you kinda want the car to drive at least partially based on properly maintained maps and such rather than just visual information you raise a good point but that specific example would be avoided by their lidar sensors
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Fabricated posted:or somehow magically secured a zillion dollars to paint all roads with sensors or special paint it can instantly recognize you'd literally have people crashing these cars by drawing a fake road into a wall like Wil E. Coyote this is literally what stanford and mit and a few other big research programs have been doing since the mid-80s the frontrunner for "smart roads" that we learned about in school was this system where you since pylons into the road every 12 feet or something that it can detect in order to sense the edge of the travel lanes coupled with sensing technology that you put in the other cars on your test track you can get some really crazy traffic densities where everyone's less than a foot from everyone else it's something that's been worked on for decades and yeah the unpredictability is what kills it all of these methods work best when you hit a threshold of autonomous vehicles on the road - iirc it's somewhere just south of 1 in 3
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Fabricated posted:you kinda want the car to drive at least partially based on properly maintained maps and such rather than just visual information then it's an inferior solution because i can drive based on just visual information quote:like if you had it look for lines in the road... you'd literally have people crashing these cars by drawing a fake road into a wall like Wil E. Coyote no, because ostensibly such a system would be able to tell a real road from a drawing based on just visual information.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
what if its a really good drawing
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:what if its a really good drawing
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:Civilians are detected simply as moving, column-shaped blurs of pixels—meaning, Urmson agrees, that the drone wouldn’t be able to spot an injured friendly at the side of the road frantically waving for the drone to stop firing.Â
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
lol i just remembered i live in a world where microsoft bought a lovely java mining game for 2.5 billion dollars and this is the real world this really is happening
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
edit: whoops i missed vvv thank you for replying though
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
even google isn't that dumb i think
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:yes apart from the zune, surface, xbox one, windows 8, windows phone, massive layoffs and a CEO resignation it's all good?? yes it is all good? lol that internet nerds are still butthurt over the xbox one btw. Cold on a Cob posted:lol i just remembered i live in a world where microsoft bought a lovely java mining game for 2.5 billion dollars and this is the real world this really is happening the lovely java mining game is literally second only to tetris in terms of games people actually buy
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:the lovely java mining game is literally second only to tetris in terms of games people actually buy uhm it's actually *third* best selling after wii sports
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:uhm it's actually *third* best selling after wii sports everyone fishmeched about this a few pages ago yesterday, shut up
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
a fish... mech??
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:everyone fishmeched about this a few pages ago yesterday, shut up oh sorry i missed all that i was just responding to wikipedia brown 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:uhm it's actually *third* best selling after wii sports hence why i wrote actually bought, since wii sports was not optional for most of the wii's life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:hence why i wrote actually bought, since wii sports was not optional for most of the wii's life. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
also tetris was bundled with gameboy, not claiming it's exactly the same as wii sports but still
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:also tetris was bundled with gameboy, not claiming it's exactly the same as wii sports but still there were between 20 and 30 million bundled copies of tetris for game boy. when you subtract that from its total its still the best selling game of all time by a comfortable margin
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:there were between 20 and 30 million bundled copies of tetris for game boy. true that's why i said it wasn't the same. my point is i think discounting bundling is needlessly pedantic and if we were talking about any game except wii sports or maybe duck hunt i'd say you're full of poo poo but oh right ok bye
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
the proper :fishmech:
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
i dont really get the confusion over minecraft. It's immensely profitable, it's a video game, it's on xbox, why on gods green earth would microsoft NOT buy it? 2.5b may be steep, but we are not even near the same ballpark of whatsapp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
rotor posted:i dont really get the confusion over minecraft. It's immensely profitable, it's a video game, it's on xbox, why on gods green earth would microsoft NOT buy it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
HAIL eSATA-n posted:because they were already making money from it selling on xbox and 2.5 billion dollars is way too much anything for some silly game nobody will give a poo poo about in 5 years counterpoint: world of warcraft
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
and they dont even have to maintain servers look, I'm not saying they didn't overpay. I'm saying that of the recent big tech purchases, this isn't really that bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
rotor posted:and they dont even have to maintain servers Yeah, stacked up against other tech purchases this is a pretty smart deal. Minecraft is a video game that has crazy saturation throughout ages 5-18. Love it or hate it, there's been plenty of time for a Minecraft killer to come around and it just hasn't happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
ms bought minecraft whatever to teach a new generation to hate them
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Busta Chimes.wav posted:jesus christ google, how hard is it to design a self-driving car? this car only passed "with flying colors" and "dealt remarkably well with errant pedestrians, freeways, and busy intersections?" step up your goddamn game! its useless
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:38
|
|