|
Paradoxish posted:People keep saying this, but I don't think it's going to matter. There's going to be a lot of resistance to this stuff and I'm sure a lot of these things will end up damaged or destroyed, but ultimately they're going to have cameras installed, "accidents" will be prosecuted, and people will settle down and let it happen. There's no way that a lot of small deliveries aren't automated in 5-10 years if the the technology to cheaply do so exists. What if someone else comes up with Kickr, a bot which allows you to kick at these delivery bots from afar?
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:People keep saying this, but I don't think it's going to matter. There's going to be a lot of resistance to this stuff and I'm sure a lot of these things will end up damaged or destroyed, but ultimately they're going to have cameras installed, "accidents" will be prosecuted, and people will settle down and let it happen. There's no way that a lot of small deliveries aren't automated in 5-10 years if the the technology to cheaply do so exists. Bored teenagers are going to hunt these things with paintball markers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I can't wait till someone roles out this tech outside a place with near perfect weather like SF, I can just imagine how it will work in a mid-western winter let alone a Canadian one. There are lots of things about SF (very temperate climate, high levels of population density/small geographic area, substantial highly-paid, technologically literate population that is very willing to trade money for convenience/time) that don't generalize well to other areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Please do not advocate for people to give their robots tear gas. It is not good. Counterpoint: Equip all Roombas with tazers
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Yeah, something like this would need some sort of security system. Maybe if it gets disturbed, it could phone home to a human operator, who depending on the situation could give a verbal warning or use a nonlethal countermeasure like tear gas and notify police. You're allowed to use non-deadly force to protect your property, after all. You are allowed to use non-deadly force to protect your property. Your robot is not. There are cases of people setting harmful traps for anyone breaking into their houses who were then prosecuted when the trap went off and killed or harmed someone (even if that someone was a crook trying to get into their house). Even in crazy castle-doctrine, stand-your-ground states you can't have a robot, trap, or other mechanical method of firing a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Yeah, even in Texas you can't get away with automated sentry guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Instead of having the robots warn people with a stern voice not to vandalize them (or blast them like some OmniCorp product), make them look like big puppies or something. Make them whimper if you hurt them. I bet that would actually work out really well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Instead of having the robots warn people with a stern voice not to vandalize them (or blast them like some OmniCorp product), make them look like big puppies or something. Make them whimper if you hurt them. I bet that would actually work out really well. Incidentally that's exactly the reason those self-driving Google cars were meant to look like cute things with faces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Instead of having the robots warn people with a stern voice not to vandalize them (or blast them like some OmniCorp product), make them look like big puppies or something. Make them whimper if you hurt them. I bet that would actually work out really well. Or it may hilariously backfire in case someone really wants to work off some steam.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 08:14
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yeah, even in Texas you can't get away with automated sentry guns. So what you're saying is the sentry guns need to send you a text first asking permission to open fire. Brilliant!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Startup snark aside, autonomous vehicles are going to be huge in the next decade. That sounds like a decent investment in a sort of first-pass robocar company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Or it may hilariously backfire in case someone really wants to work off some steam. Give the robots jaws filled with sharp teeth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I can't wait till someone roles out this tech outside a place with near perfect weather like SF, I can just imagine how it will work in a mid-western winter let alone a Canadian one. Or even places that don't have great infrastructure codes. What happens when this thing comes across a bad sidewalk, or one that doesn't have wheelchair ramps at every curb. Much less people loving with them. Just drop a pane of plexiglass in front of it and enjoy the show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
It's an armored box (to protect from wear and tear as well as thieves) covered with cameras and other sensors. It's going to be in constant contact with dispatch who can call the police or take other measures in response. And anything that interferes with its ability to operate safely is going to be a serious crime due to the potential consequences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
It's property, at worst loving with it is petty vandalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Buffer posted:It's property, at worst loving with it is petty vandalism. If it's delivering things then wouldn't that be interference with the mail?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Buffer posted:It's property, at worst loving with it is petty vandalism. In the sense that splashing paint on a moving car's windshield is going to be treated as petty vandalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
No, because theres no person in it... The Larch posted:If it's delivering things then wouldn't that be interference with the mail? Not unless it is run by the USPS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
You can't scale enforcement for millions of robots delivering someone's toothpaste
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
E: double post
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
nachos posted:You can't scale enforcement for millions of robots delivering someone's toothpaste If there's not an epidemic of people attacking and destroying delivery trucks right now, there shouldn't be a problem when the trucks themselves are capable of reporting the crime and providing evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:If there's not an epidemic of people attacking and destroying delivery trucks right now, there shouldn't be a problem when the trucks themselves are capable of reporting the crime and providing evidence. and yet when industrialization started workers who were losing their jobs to machines would intentionally sabotage them. what's to stop ups/fedex/usps drivers giving these robots some "help" when they see these things while they're driving around?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
axeil posted:and yet when industrialization started workers who were losing their jobs to machines would intentionally sabotage them. what's to stop ups/fedex/usps drivers giving these robots some "help" when they see these things while they're driving around? Nothing but jailtime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
So, a question about Dropbox, since thats one of the companies people are worried about: Suppose Dropbox goes under. What then? What becomes of their users dropboxes? Do they just vanish overnight? I ask because I'm thinking of getting one of their paid models but if Dropbox is in danger of going under, I don't see much point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:People keep saying this, but I don't think it's going to matter. There's going to be a lot of resistance to this stuff and I'm sure a lot of these things will end up damaged or destroyed, but ultimately they're going to have cameras installed, "accidents" will be prosecuted, and people will settle down and let it happen. There's no way that a lot of small deliveries aren't automated in 5-10 years if the the technology to cheaply do so exists. When you factor in liability it won't be cheap in 5-10 years. This is just like automated cars. It's not just about the tech. It's about people accepting the tech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Startup snark aside, autonomous vehicles are going to be huge in the next decade. That sounds like a decent investment in a sort of first-pass robocar company. There's probably about a decade between the technology being perfected and it actually being on the road. The technology is not close to being perfected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Honestly, thinking about ways to keep vandals from loving up automated delivery drones is a bit like trying to decide what would be the best way to keep bugs out of the windshield of your flying car. People are really overestimating the state of the art in robotics, and how fast things in that field are developing. "Carry" is a cute stunt, but at best you'll be able to learn more about what we don't know about how to do these things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's probably about a decade between the technology being perfected and it actually being on the road. ^^^ Google cars still bump into other cars because they can't predict real people's reactions and bad driving. Google has a lot more money poured into the engineering of this, and the advantages of an enormous cloud backing their work. Google cars are also much harder to sabotage than trashcan-sized rectangular bots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Regarding accepting the tech, I know it's not JUST this but you also have to look the "perfection" of the current state of affairs. Eventually the production-model automated car will kill someone but currently we're dropping ~100 people a day in the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Regarding accepting the tech, I know it's not JUST this but you also have to look the "perfection" of the current state of affairs. Eventually the production-model automated car will kill someone but currently we're dropping ~100 people a day in the US. Unless you're specifically invested in something, it's human nature to minimize the issues of the status quo and sensationalize the issues of the competing system. Those statistics is how you'll try to convince the bureaucrats to accept your car, but there's more than just objective fact that goes into policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Yeah that's the "I know it's not JUST this" part
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:and yet when industrialization started workers who were losing their jobs to machines would intentionally sabotage them. what's to stop ups/fedex/usps drivers giving these robots some "help" when they see these things while they're driving around? The fact that the people designing the robots aren't complete idiots and the people using them want to protect their investment. Real life isn't Avatar where the bad guys have figured out how to fly to distant stars but forgot that when bombing the gently caress out of someone, you should fly higher and faster than they can shoot back. In order for an autonomous vehicle to safely operate in the first place, it needs sufficient awareness of its surroundings and the ability to interpret what it senses. In order to reliably operate, it needs to monitor its own status so it can recognize when something goes wrong and respond accordingly. Even if they're capable of operating autonomously, any such vehicle is still going to be in contact with home base whenever possible for real time status monitoring. The robot itself basically has everything it needs to be its own security system apart from a really loud alarm. Saboteurs might succeed but it's much harder for them to keep from getting caught.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Regarding accepting the tech, I know it's not JUST this but you also have to look the "perfection" of the current state of affairs. Eventually the production-model automated car will kill someone but currently we're dropping ~100 people a day in the US. This got went over in detail in the Silicon Valley thread, but the people dying in accidents each year occurs because there is an insane amount of driving that is going on. Human failure rate (number of accidents per mile driven) is actually really low, something like 1.3 fatal accidents per 100 million miles. All accidents of any type are 185 per 100 million miles driven (1.85 per million). Google's self-driving cars have barely driven over a million miles are have been in several accidents. Sure, they've only been responsible for one of them so far, but fault isn't accounted for in the human-driven accident rate. Also, Google is tipping the scales a bit by keeping the cars at low speeds and not driving in bad weather. So it's entirely likely that if we flipped to all-robot cars tomorrow (or even a couple of years from now) we'd see that ~100 deaths per day turn into ~120.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:^^^ reminder that even the google cars people themselves think that self-driving cars are decades away quote:Even with high-flying names like "Autonomous Vehicles Will Remake Cities" and "Autonomous Cars Will Make Us Better Humans," the tone at SXSW’s many forward-looking talks has been more subdued. Self-driving cars may be on the road today — in pilot programs in various sunny, fine-weathered locales. But the most optimistic of technologists are starting to acknowledge that the problem very well may take decades to crack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Have google cars even attempted driving on snow and ice yet? That throws thousands of new variables into the equation depending on what type of snow you're dealing with and how much is on the ground. Hell, if they're still using Bay Area weather as a template they aren't even ready for rain yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
People vote. Robots don't. This is the acceptance / political part of the problem stack and the thing engineers are poo poo at. It's very easy to imagine a world where there are zero consequences for loving up a robot courier and if it drives into traffic and hurts someone *REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE* it's the company and the engineers who are on the hook. It's a lot harder to imagine a world where having displaced the #1 job in the country, those displaced workers just go, yea, ok, I'll vote for the guy who not only let that happen, he indemnified the people that did it AND tacked on extra penalties not under current law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Have google cars even attempted driving on snow and ice yet? That throws thousands of new variables into the equation depending on what type of snow you're dealing with and how much is on the ground. Hell, if they're still using Bay Area weather as a template they aren't even ready for rain yet. Computers are already better at driving on snow and ice than humans. If you doubt that turn off your antilock breaks and traction control and drive around during a Minnesota winter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Driving around without traction control or ABS in the winter in a RWD car is really really fun though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
e_angst posted:This got went over in detail in the Silicon Valley thread, but the people dying in accidents each year occurs because there is an insane amount of driving that is going on. Human failure rate (number of accidents per mile driven) is actually really low, something like 1.3 fatal accidents per 100 million miles. All accidents of any type are 185 per 100 million miles driven (1.85 per million). Google's self-driving cars have barely driven over a million miles are have been in several accidents. Sure, they've only been responsible for one of them so far, but fault isn't accounted for in the human-driven accident rate. Also, Google is tipping the scales a bit by keeping the cars at low speeds and not driving in bad weather. So it's entirely likely that if we flipped to all-robot cars tomorrow (or even a couple of years from now) we'd see that ~100 deaths per day turn into ~120.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
pangstrom posted:Yeah nobody is arguing we should switch now or that they're better now. Wired Magazine is
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:35
|
|
