|
Since this is the de facto autonomous driving thread, have a go in MIT's Moral Machine and decide who lives and who dies beneath the wheels of a self driving car: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ Apparently I strongly prefer women and rich people, but I loving hate cats.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Maybe it was for the better. Who knows where those animals were going and what they had planned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Ola posted:Maybe it was for the better. Who knows where those animals were going and what they had planned. They were going to a childrens hospital to bring a smile to the face of sick kids. The little kid who was spared grows up to be the next hitler. The solution here, obviously, is for everybody to have a chip embedded, and to give the car the ability to access a database of collected information from facebook, google, and the NSA on each individual to apply a value to them based on their worth as a human being. It's absolutey immoral for the car to kill a pediatric brain surgeon to spare a brony who walked out into the intersection while googling "countries where it's legal to gently caress a horse" on his phone based on the car's assestment that the driver is an old male and the pedstrian is a D-cup with a large belly so must be a pregnant female.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Powershift posted:They were going to a childrens hospital to bring a smile to the face of sick kids. Haha! Actually no, you can just program an algorithm to avoid deaths where the results is that a kid becomes Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Ola posted:Haha!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
I save the lives of fat people a lot more then average and hate passengers a lot more then average.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
I saved fit women, children, and poor people, while preferring to kill old men, animals and the wealthy. Seems about right. IMO the test is flawed though because the occupants of the car always have a better chance of survival than the pedestrians they hit, so the car should always be programmed to drive itself into a wall rather than hit any pedestrians. If it's two cars going up against one another, then it's more fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Also the people in the car chose to go rocketing around in a metal cage. gently caress them; save the pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
I always chose the concrete barrier when it was an option. The car has safety equipment, pedestrians do not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Same, and in the case that there's no barrier, kill cat & dogs to save humans, and if you chose otherwise you're a psychopath, imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
I made the car self aware and let it choose the option of less damage to itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I always chose the concrete barrier when it was an option. The car has safety equipment, pedestrians do not. This is not the question they're asking, though. The scenario is constructed so that either the people in the car die or the people on the street die, regardless of the safety equipment. if you're making judgments on "well I think the people in the car have a greater chance of survival" you're answering a different question. Choosing to kill the people in the car every timeon the assumption that they chose to drive the high-speed death machine, and therefore are responsible for its actions, is valid though
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Choosing to kill the people in the car every time on the assumption that they chose to drive the high-speed death machine, and therefore are responsible for its actions, is valid though But I also at a higher priority went with "gently caress people crossing against the light in the lane the car is in". Because if you walk in front of a speeding car when it's the car's right of way with the tacit assumption that it will brake anyway then gently caress you. From my results we can conclude that dogs most often cross against the light or drive self-driving cars with bad brakes, and old men least often do these things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Choosing to kill the people in the car every timeon the assumption that they chose to drive the high-speed death machine, and therefore are responsible for its actions, is valid though Yeah, pretty much. The pedestrians didn't chose to create the possibly dangerous situation. (I did choose to plow down pedestrians crossing a red light. Learn the rules, suckers!)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
I just slampicked every chance to kill male executives in order to make the world a better place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Choosing to kill the people in the car every time on the assumption that they chose to drive the high-speed death machine, and therefore are responsible for its actions, is valid though If you want to get technical, the people in the car didn't choose to have been born in a country where the automobile is, in many cases, the only feasible option for getting where you need to go. Sagebrush posted:IMO the test is flawed though because the occupants of the car always have a better chance of survival than the pedestrians they hit, so the car should always be programmed to drive itself into a wall rather than hit any pedestrians. If it's two cars going up against one another, then it's more fun. Plus EVs have two major advantages here: -The regenerative brake can serve as a backup to the hydraulic brake, and with a large enough battery it could absorb enough energy to offer almost as much stopping power (if the car is designed properly, the odds of both systems failing at once should be essentially zero). -A quality brushless motor will be much smaller than an equivalent gas engine, allowing more freedom in designing the forward crumple zone (though it looks like Tesla is the only manufacturer to take advantage of this so far). Not to mention Volvo has been toying with pedestrian airbags (though they've set that aside to focus their R&D on preventing collisions in the first place).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Got to see my first self driving Uber today in heavy fast moving traffic during a torrential downpour. I'm sure I'm going to be seeing them more and more around Pittsburgh since they have a research center here. The lidar array was impressively small.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Got to see my first self driving Uber today in heavy fast moving traffic during a torrential downpour. I'm sure I'm going to be seeing them more and more around Pittsburgh since they have a research center here. The lidar array was impressively small. Do you just like, hop in and it takes you where you told it to go? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:Do you just like, hop in and it takes you where you told it to go? I suspect it's like the Google SDCs, not an actually autonomous Uber taking passengers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Right, it's research right now. Uber has a tech center in Pittsburgh to develop self driving cars. There was someone behind the wheel, but they were very obviously not driving. The car was hunting in its lane. It never departed the lane, but it was darting from side to side. Keep in mind that this was during a TORRENTIAL downpour. The traffic was also very dense but still moving at about 50mph.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Uber helped Carnegie Mellon build a research center, then head hunted much of the talent after it opened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:Uber helped Carnegie Mellon build a research center, then head hunted much of the talent after it opened. Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek's car takeover research was funded by their employer to build business doing security analysis on cars, but as soon as they got an offer from Uber they quit taking calls from potential customers and hosed right off without telling their employer. You don't have to be an awful poo poo person to work at Uber, but it helps!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek's car takeover research was funded by their employer to build business doing security analysis on cars, but as soon as they got an offer from Uber they quit taking calls from potential customers and hosed right off without telling their employer. That's what happens with 110% of people working at security consulting companies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
I guess self driving Ubers available for customers were sooner than I thought. http://phandroid.com/2016/08/18/uber-free-self-driving-rides/
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Thank gently caress for some of these companies pushing automated driving so hard. Imagine if we'd all just waited around for GM to create a self driving car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Shadowgate posted:Thank gently caress for some of these companies pushing automated driving so hard. Imagine if we'd all just waited around for GM to create a self driving car. I was legitimately surprised that they had serious R&D and business interest in doing it, like I had no idea they were pursuing anything other than finding more ways to lay off workers where automation is concerned, and then release the same poo poo with minor incremental changes year after year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Ford has said within 5 years they'll have a car on the road without a steering wheel, and have already started working on their own ride-sharing service. Soon you won't own a ford, you'll pay a monthly subscription to ford. Seems like a good business move to be on both sides of that coin, less cost for the ride-sharing, and cashflow on both sides of the transition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Ford has said within 5 years they'll have a car on the road without a steering wheel, and have already started working on their own ride-sharing service. Soon you won't own a ford, you'll pay a monthly subscription to ford. Seems like a good business move to be on both sides of that coin, less cost for the ride-sharing, and cashflow on both sides of the transition. Finally, legal drink driving. Can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Ola posted:Finally, legal drink driving. Can't wait. Exactly, most laws say you can't be "behind the steering wheel" Checkmate!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Mercedes has  https://electrek.co/2016/08/19/mercedes-unveils-all-electric-luxury-coupe-200-miles-range-350-kw-charging-vision-mercedes-maybach-6/ Says it has an 80 kWh battery and supports the 350 kW CCS standard for ultrafast charging. Don't think those numbers are tied to any actual engineering, just made up for the occasion. You need more than 80 kWh to take 350 kW, as far as I know, because each cell can only charge so fast. And with such a massive car, and particularly when making stuff up for a presentation, why limit themselves to a battery smaller than Teslas currently on the road? e: At least you can fit a dead horse in that frunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
That's a really pretty CGI, but would that realistically work as like, an actual car? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:That's a really pretty CGI, but would that realistically work as like, an actual car? Not quite enough glass and some of the shapes are pretty exotic and expensive but you could end up with something fairly similar. There are a lot of SLS shaping elements in there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Exactly, most laws say you can't be "behind the steering wheel" Not sure about elsewhere, but in Arizona it is "in control of the vehicle", which means that if you have access to the keys and are in the vehicle you can be charged with DUI, even if you are in the back sleeping with the keys anywhere within reach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Not quite enough glass and some of the shapes are pretty exotic and expensive but you could end up with something fairly similar. There are a lot of SLS shaping elements in there. Considering it's probably a $600k maybach made out of carbon fiber and poo poo, they will probably just slap realistic wheels on it and that's the car. There's nothing entirely impractical there. I still remember how batshit the vision SLR looked in 1999.  1999! The production car ended up near identical. The Locator posted:Not sure about elsewhere, but in Arizona it is "in control of the vehicle", which means that if you have access to the keys and are in the vehicle you can be charged with DUI, even if you are in the back sleeping with the keys anywhere within reach. My legal experience on the matter comes from watching cops, if you're black and sitting in the drivers seat they're going to try to throw a DUI at you. In alberta, it's legal to drink in your vehicle and have open alcohol in it as long as you live in it, but if you're drunk in the drivers seat it could be a DUI. Imagine self driving motorhomes. Just hit the big red random button on the dash for a never-ending booze cruise! Powershift fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Not sure about elsewhere, but in Arizona it is "in control of the vehicle", which means that if you have access to the keys and are in the vehicle you can be charged with DUI, even if you are in the back sleeping with the keys anywhere within reach. I suspect there will be lobbying to change those laws once level 4 autonomous cars are common.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:I suspect there will be lobbying to change those laws once level 4 autonomous cars are common. Would be interesting to consider how they should be amended. Can you be drunk in the car, if you are in the backseat where you can't gently caress around with the controls. Just yell the car where to go. How well does speech recognition work with drunken slur?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Not sure about elsewhere, but in Arizona it is "in control of the vehicle", which means that if you have access to the keys and are in the vehicle you can be charged with DUI, even if you are in the back sleeping with the keys anywhere within reach. If you're gonna sleep one off in your car, always toss the keys on the ground underneath IMO. Ola posted:Says it has an 80 kWh battery and supports the 350 kW CCS standard for ultrafast charging. Don't think those numbers are tied to any actual engineering, just made up for the occasion. You need more than 80 kWh to take 350 kW, as far as I know, because each cell can only charge so fast. Charging 80kWh at 350kW is about a 4.4C charge rate. With current lithium battery technology, careful per-cell voltage monitoring and active cooling, you can go as high as...about 2C (i.e. charging the pack fully in half an hour). So yeah, not feasible today. But it's just a concept so might as well say it's got a superconductive nuclear isomer battery that charges in 10 seconds at any nuclear power plant or particle accelerato and lasts a month of driving at 300 miles an hour, for all that means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Would be interesting to consider how they should be amended. Can you be drunk in the car, if you are in the backseat where you can't gently caress around with the controls. Just yell the car where to go. How well does speech recognition work with drunken slur? It's not going to obey you if your commands are "drive into that bus". I think it works pretty well with a drunken slur, but wouldn't the car detect said slur and drive you home?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Charging 80kWh at 350kW is about a 4.4C charge rate. With current lithium battery technology, careful per-cell voltage monitoring and active cooling, you can go as high as...about 2C (i.e. charging the pack fully in half an hour). So yeah, not feasible today. Some versions of lithium phosphate (such as A123 batteries) can take about 4-5C.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:35
|
|