|
Germstore posted:why do you continue to pretend the only self driving cars are going to be google pod cars? If it's a true self driving car it doesn't need a steering wheel. Otherwise it's an assisted drive car. If the entire *entire* point of a self driving car is to lower accidents and fatalities on the road, then having a steering wheel at all cancels that *only* benefit out entirely. because some of the time people will be using a steering wheel and driving their own car, and 10% steering wheel usage on the road is still just as large a safety concern as 100% usage, because the issue is some people are unpredictable to traffic at large some of the time.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
If the point is not primarily safety and predictability, then it is a vanity and luxury technology like someone above said. Someone who wants to bring chaffeurs to the masses. Just like manicured lawns to the masses because the nobles had them in the old world. Nothing more than that. Why pimp it so hard then
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:If it's a true self driving car it doesn't need a steering wheel. Otherwise it's an assisted drive car. You're an idiot. You just gave an example of were a self driving car would need a steering wheel and then declared it not a self driving car. Firstly, and this is unlikely, you could gate for manual control; only allow it off road. Secondly saying it only increases safety if there's 100% usage is not actually backed up by anything. Self driving cars are being designed to work with human traffic. That's a fact. At this point you're not even putting the goal post back in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
also http://fortune.com/2016/04/12/self-driving-cars-safety-study/ It's Impossible to Find Out If Self-Driving Cars Are Safe: Report
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Germstore posted:You're an idiot. You just gave an example of were a self driving car would need a steering wheel and then declared it not a self driving car. Firstly, and this is unlikely, you could gate for manual control; only allow it off road. Secondly saying it only increases safety if there's 100% usage is not actually backed up by anything. Self driving cars are being designed to work with human traffic. That's a fact. At this point you're not even putting the goal post back in the ground. No, i questioned how a self driving car would operate in that environment without a steering wheel. and you said "no it will need one for that". And it just seems like safety is such a nebulous goal. Why is it worth overhauling the entire transportation system to achieve? It's not as if vehicles break apart spontaneously, crashes are due to human miscalculations in complex situations. I'm not even sure computers can calculate perfectly in all situations, given that they are being coded by humans who can't account for all situations all of the time, and even if they could, many situations are simply unavoidable. At the end of the day, a tire blowout on a truck that causes a 10 car pileup is still human error, since the tires weren't maintained properly. how are up the chain of human error are you willing to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
In order for self driving cars to be safer then driven cars, they will have to be prevented from excessively speeding, in all situations. Think about the ramifications of that. They will not be able to exceed the speed limit. In all situations. You can't program a car to break the law can you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:No, i questioned how a self driving car would operate in that environment without a steering wheel. and you said "no it will need one for that". You wouldn't take a google pod car off road. You wouldn't. As for safety, "park in that spot" is a lot harder than saving your life. Saving your life just requires knowing where things currently are and estimating where they will be, and if that estimate puts them where you are at any point in the future, move. That's it, and it's something we can already do very well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:No, i questioned how a self driving car would operate in that environment without a steering wheel. and you said "no it will need one for that". Tautologicus posted:If the entire *entire* point of a self driving car is to lower accidents and fatalities on the road, then having a steering wheel at all cancels that *only* benefit out entirely. because some of the time people will be using a steering wheel and driving their own car, and 10% steering wheel usage on the road is still just as large a safety concern as 100% usage, because the issue is some people are unpredictable to traffic at large some of the time. Tautologicus posted:when it's stop and go, but not when they're clear. in major cities everyones going 75-80 weaving between lanes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Tautologicus posted:In order for self driving cars to be safer then driven cars, they will have to be prevented from excessively speeding, in all situations. Think about the ramifications of that. They will not be able to exceed the speed limit. In all situations. why would that be necessary (why would a speeding car make all safe driving cars ever unsafe) why couldn't a self driving car have an emergency mode why couldn't a self driving car have an optional manual mode to drive on lovely dirt roads without clear markings, so that hicks living in a log cabin can drive to the nearest highway before taking the hands off the wheel why would keeping to the speed limit in normal circumstances be a bad thing suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:also Humans don't have to go trough millions of miles of validation before they're allowed to drive either. I am not saying that we shouldn't have high confidence before fielding stuff like autonomous driving, but lets not pretend that we have a system that only allows safe drivers to have a license.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
I'm not sure how seriously I take a think tank report written by non subject matter experts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:humans are not machines in any meaningful sense of the word I bet you think we're not animals either it's a good thing we have you to tell us what words mean
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
blowfish posted:why would that be necessary (why would a speeding car make all safe driving cars ever unsafe) it won't have any of those things. how can a computer be programmed to break the law? the federal government would have a field day with that. wait now you're saying a speeding self driving car doesn't make the roads less safe? amazing. speed is the #1 cause of all accidents. a computer can't defy the laws of physics when stopping suddenly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
even google maps has a disclaimer somewhere that says "obey all posted speedlimits". and most GPSs too
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
the benefit of a self driving car is that it will never speed, not that it is infallible in all difficult circumstances. even where speed limits are artificially low, or universally ignored, like on the highways around most major cities. its gonna suckkkkkk
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
in fact, obeying the speed limit on many highways around the country is far more dangerous than keeping up with the speed of traffic. and then people will say "we will increase all the speed limits because self driving cars". but again, speed is the most prominent factor in vehicle accidents, and so we're still at the safety problem. lets just make them all go 100 mph because theyre driven by computers, is not something a reasonable person can say. accidents happen on the autobahn too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:the benefit of a self driving car is that it will never speed, not that it is infallible in all difficult circumstances. even where speed limits are artificially low, or universally ignored, like on the highways around most major cities. Safety is boring. There is always stuff like unsecured rock climbing and wingsuits for guys like you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:Safety is boring. There is always stuff like unsecured rock climbing and wingsuits for guys like you. i don't do any of that stuff, that's adrenaline seeking anyway. it's going to be worse than 100% safety, you'll be going slow as hell wherever you go. all those 55 mph posted highways will suddenly mean something. and they won't increase the limits as long as there are human drivers on the road, which there will always be. because cops already selectively enforce them anyway, it's a self solving problem. they use the speed limit in situations where someones clearly out of line, but you don't see 100's of cops on the 101 or I-95 aggressively enforcing every inch of the highway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Even the Google car had a "speed here pls" toggle so I have no idea what the gently caress you're even trying to argue here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Even the Google car had a "speed here pls" toggle so I have no idea what the gently caress you're even trying to argue here. I don't think you do either. Source? I can't find anything on that. An article that says you're probably wrong http://www.mtv.com/news/2691008/driverless-cars-following-speed-limit-causing-accidents/ the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
How could it have a "speed here" toggle. who would insure that car
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
can't wait to be killed by my car
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
the whole thing about humans driving over the speed limit is "plausible deniability". everyone does it in major areas, and the cops look the other way because by and large its safe if everyone does it. but if they increased the limits then everyone would probably go 10 mph over that one too where they could. and if someone gets in an accident while speeding, then insurance won't cover them, because it's still at the end of the day illegal even if not 100% aggressively enforced. a self driving car, and the company that produces it, has no plausible deniability. its willingness to override the speed limit would be out in the open, it would be known that the car's protocol is to flout the law. that would not fly. no one can look the other way. you have to give people the ability to look the other way in these gray situations, and a self driving car hard coded to break the law takes away that ability. that is Bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:I don't think you do either. Source? I can't find anything on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
sounds like a testing feature, and i doubt it will be in any production car anywhere, since everything else he said had to do with how carefully the car follows speed limits. if not, then the person who pushes that button would be liable for the ticket, and so the liability would not be able to be passed on to the car completely like so many seem to hope. companies would love to pass any and all liability onto the passengers if they can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
whoa, if you choose to speed the car company won't take responsibility? You've just strapped the goalpost to your back at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Germstore posted:whoa, if you choose to speed the car company won't take responsibility? You've just strapped the goalpost to your back at this point. i dunno, im just speculating. all these upcoming self driving car crashes will be the driver's fault, and nothing will have changed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
google guy said it can be used for your commute. i can maybe believe that. point a to point b, predetermined. anything else, not so much. driving in closed systems like hospital campuses and universities? sure. driving out in the wild with no predetermined destination? never.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
"Haha wow, 43 pages! What started off as a funny thread making fun of some technophile's stupid machine getting him killed must have only gotten funnier!" *reads last few pages of thread* "Hmm..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
st1LL_51ngl3 posted:"Haha wow, 43 pages! What started off as a funny thread making fun of some technophile's stupid machine getting him killed must have only gotten funnier!" It would be fun if we outsourced human intervention when automatic driving fails with a wireless link. Now people can play a game that matters and get paid for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
st1LL_51ngl3 posted:"Haha wow, 43 pages! What started off as a funny thread making fun of some technophile's stupid machine getting him killed must have only gotten funnier!" wrong btich!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
A lot has been said about the technology behind autonomous cars ITT, but it seems no one has really mentioned the economic and social implications of such automation. In America alone the transportation industry employs millions and millions of people. Should we ever reach a point where truly autonomous, unmanned vehicles become widespread, all those jobs in this massive industry will be gone, the world economy will literally collapse. Knowing this, I think it's highly immoral to continue developing such technologies. No amount of convenience or safety gains are worth the damage that such change would cause. I hope and believe that the western governments will heavily regulate these autonomous vehicles should they ever start reaching a point where they can replace real human beings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
All automating technologies should be regulated towards the effort of saving jobs. Not just for the benefit of workers, but also for the environment and the pace of society. There is no reason for more and more things to be made, and the pace of life to get faster and faster. The only reason it does is due to the never ending arms race between self interested companies, and the governments that enable them, and are often even in bed with them. Stop the endless procession of automation at a defined point. Any country that doesn't will gently caress itself so completely that it won't be competing for very long with its fully automated workforce anyhow. It's up to responsible countries to avoid that minefield before the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:All automating technologies should be regulated towards the effort of saving jobs. Not just for the benefit of workers, but also for the environment and the pace of society. There is no reason for more and more things to be made, and the pace of life to get faster and faster. The only reason it does is due to the never ending arms race between self interested companies, and the governments that enable them, and are often even in bed with them. lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:A lot has been said about the technology behind autonomous cars ITT, but it seems no one has really mentioned the economic and social implications of such automation. In America alone the transportation industry employs millions and millions of people. Should we ever reach a point where truly autonomous, unmanned vehicles become widespread, all those jobs in this massive industry will be gone, the world economy will literally collapse. Knowing this, I think it's highly immoral to continue developing such technologies. No amount of convenience or safety gains are worth the damage that such change would cause. Tautologicus posted:All automating technologies should be regulated towards the effort of saving jobs. Not just for the benefit of workers, but also for the environment and the pace of society. There is no reason for more and more things to be made, and the pace of life to get faster and faster. The only reason it does is due to the never ending arms race between self interested companies, and the governments that enable them, and are often even in bed with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
If you never speed you are either a liar or an anal shitbag no one likes. There are unreasonably low limits everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:If you never speed you are either a liar or an anal shitbag no one likes. There are unreasonably low limits everywhere. Speed limits and the rationale for establishing them should be completely re-evaluated for reasons that have nothing to do with self-driving cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
st1LL_51ngl3 posted:"Haha wow, 43 pages! What started off as a funny thread making fun of some technophile's stupid machine getting him killed must have only gotten funnier!" outside of this specific example, why would you EVER think this
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
wyoak posted:This is never going to happen, but getting rid of individual car ownership would be a massive boon for the environment. Anyway you've shifted the focal point of your argument so many times I don't know why I'm even bothering to engage you. Arguing with the guy who's stance is "I don't understand this thing and it scares me and also I just discovered pot" seems kinda foolish but here I am. But building a million more cars etc is not, which was the point. And yes i've shifted my argument a lot and i see nothing wrong with that and there's a lot to bring up especially since i see no one discussing the real possible ramifications of all this. all the articles i see on the web about these cars is just surface level self congratulatory trivia. no one gets into it. and the more I get into it the more i dont like what i see. and sorry about all your strawmen but i don't do any drugs. the problem is i am understanding all the ramifications and you're all just handwaving them away, which is fine, go for it, and i'm going to keep objecting, cause that's what i do. i only got huffy earlier cause the tone was all "well obviously its going to be this way  " and i can't stand for that poo poo, come down from the high horse and realize that i'm bringing up legitimate points. don't assume everythings solved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:outside of this specific example, why would you EVER think this His neural network overfitted the training data.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:25
|
|