|
i'm ok with self-driving cars not having a steering wheel but i gotta draw the line at not having an accelerator. what if i need to smoke some guy at the stoplight
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Google Chrysler self driving car well i guess it's time to start studying for the LSAT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:i'm ok with self-driving cars not having a steering wheel but i gotta draw the line at not having an accelerator. what if i need to smoke some guy at the stoplight That's what voice controls are for. "OK Google, cut this douchebag off."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
A CVT-powered supercharger!  http://blog.caranddriver.com/finally-a-cvt-that-makes-sense/?src=socialflowFB seriously what the gently caress edit: also i think  belongs here
Friar Zucchini fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:A CVT-powered supercharger! More boost at all rpms!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
wargames posted:More boost at all rpms!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:More boost at one particular RPM because it's the one the computer likes best, more like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Increasing fueling and boost on demand at a given RPM sounds pretty good to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/5d15aba71eea4192aab219a83ca71ed5/GM-to-temporarily-close-5-factories-as-car-inventory-builds RIP cars. also, cheap camaros soon quote:DETROIT (AP) — General Motors will temporarily close five factories next month as it tries to reduce a growing inventory of cars on dealer lots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:A CVT-powered supercharger! Finally a good place for a cvt
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Am I alone in thinking "self driving" cars are the dumbest idea ever to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Am I alone in thinking "self driving" cars are the dumbest idea ever to happen. No but consider that at worst a computer is probably still a better driver than the average human who's already out on the roads. If someone can be watching TV whilst being in a moving car I prefer they do it with someone else driving be it another person or a computer. And I actually had this happen, some lady pulled out on me from a side road without looking and I see her phone on her dashboard with her head turning to glance at it. Self driving cars are a great idea assuming tech is good enough. Also a nice deterrent for poo poo drivers, take their license off them and force the dickheads to get places in a car they can't actively drive. *edit: this is all a long way off being done properly. Olympic Mathlete fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Well I don't agree with any of that. Maybe on limited access highways they could be all right. Some kind of advanced cruise control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Am I alone in thinking "self driving" cars are the dumbest idea ever to happen. It'll only work if they're on a roadway with only other self driving cars. People are too unpredictable and dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
That argument doesn't make any sense. You can say the tech isn't there yet ( it isn't) but a computer will be able to respond faster and in a more correct manner to unexpected events than a person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
give me self-driving cars and mandatory yearly driving tests that relegate you to self-driving cars if you fail, and the same penalty for most moving violations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:give me self-driving cars and mandatory yearly driving tests that relegate you to self-driving cars if you fail, and the same penalty for most moving violations. Yup, plus expanded public transportation in urban areas. The vast majority of people aren't better drivers than a self-driving car today, nor does that majority want to be actively driving in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well I don't agree with any of that. Your can disagree all you want. It won't change the trend of the data being collected that says otherwise. Yes, we still need to collect even more data, but what we have so far is pretty damning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:give me self-driving cars and mandatory yearly driving tests that relegate you to self-driving cars if you fail, and the same penalty for most moving violations. Yeah, the fact that there's absolutely no form of recurrent training or proficiency check for driving frightens the gently caress out of me. Yearly is maybe a bit much, but every two years (rising to yearly for people older than 60) sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
If you aren't ok with our robotic future you are already too old, grandpa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
fyodor posted:If you aren't ok with our robotic future you are already too old, grandpa. Driving is fun. If the future ain't fun, I don't want to be in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Driving is fun. If the future ain't fun, I don't want to be in it. Driving a fun car around in a spirited manner is fun. Commuting is not. I for one, welcome our self driving overlords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Nobody is saying you have to use a self-driving car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
fyodor posted:Nobody is saying you have to use a self-driving car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Yet. It'll be a while til you see all cars be truly automated anyways. It'll start off as a luxury feature, then trickle it's way down into more common cars. That's not including the whole poo poo show that'll happen the first time a car without a steering wheel gets someone killed though. That'll push it back further.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well I don't agree with any of that. Disagree all you want, doesn't make you correct. Data says otherwise. Wistful of Dollars posted:It'll only work if they're on a roadway with only other self driving cars. I'll take one driver and one computer over two drivers. If people are too unpredictable and dumb having two of them makes that worse not better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Disagree all you want, doesn't make you correct. Data says otherwise. The accident rate for self-driving cars in test programs like Google's is actually quite high, and that's with a human co-driver at the wheel. They claim that none of them are "at fault" but obviously this is spinning the fact that they are in fact quite accident prone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
butterbar posted:The accident rate for self-driving cars in test programs like Google's is actually quite high Got a source for that bold claim?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
butterbar posted:The accident rate for people in programs like actual real life is actually quite high, and that's with a computer shifting gears. They claim that none of them are "at fault" but obviously this is spinning the fact that they are in fact quite accident prone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
butterbar posted:The accident rate for self-driving cars in test programs like Google's is actually quite high, and that's with a human co-driver at the wheel. They claim that none of them are "at fault" but obviously this is spinning the fact that they are in fact quite accident prone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Powershift posted:https://apnews.com/5d15aba71eea4192aab219a83ca71ed5/GM-to-temporarily-close-5-factories-as-car-inventory-builds The Camaro is already pretty loving cheap. I saw a few base models on autotrader for around $22,000. Add bolt-on this and you'll have a cheap 390hp, turbocharged car weighting like 3400lbs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The majority of which seem to be "woah, wtf is that fugly looking thin...[crunch]". Which I can totally see the average driver doing, and isn't at all the fault of the AI (only the engineers' for wanting to make the drat thing stand out like that). If I remember correctly, in a majority of those crashes the Google car got rearended. Which is such a basic type of accident I'm pretty confident a robot car would not commit. And in many situations where the robot car succesfully stops without rearending anyone, I would imagine they have a great chance of getting rearended by a human driver who wasn't paying as much attention. Another likely explanation is that robot car may have a tendency to slow down or stop erronously or just in case, in situation where human drivers wouldn't expect that to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
I've just seen so much horseshit on the road that I absolutely know the computer will never be able to handle, I'm going to be the last person giving up control of my car. At least until the car is programmed to drive itself up on the curb (assuming the sidewalk is clear of peds) to get the hell out of the way of the drunk shithead in a F150 barreling up behind me at a red light. Let me guess Google hasn't passed off the "what gear do I need to hop a curb with no ground clearance" code to their QA department yet, right? Couldn't care less about straightforward fender benders, I've seen enough accident scenes to not worry about those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Then again the kind of person that would statistically benefit from a self driving car would not be able to know what the gently caress to do in your situation. Self driving cars are one of the few bits of car technology that are of almost no benefit to AI people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Self driving cars are one of the few bits of car technology that are of almost no benefit to AI people. Eh, AI people commute too and some of them even own dedicated boring cars to do it in
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Couldn't care less about straightforward fender benders, I've seen enough accident scenes to not worry about those. In terms of safety you may not care, but in terms of cost you should. Cars are expensive, and insurance is expensive. Self-driving has the potential to lower those insurance rates + deductible spending and raise effective incomes (even just a bit) for millions of people. You do know that ~30,000 people are killed and many more injured each year in the U.S. due to auto accidents right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:You do know that ~30,000 people are killed and many more injured each year in the U.S. due to auto accidents right? Data does not equal insight. loving please tattoo this on the forehead of very new MBA so we stop getting awful horseshit rammed down our throats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Actually data not being the same thing as insight might be the single most important thing for people to keep in mind as we enter this new AI industrial revolution. poo poo, I think I have my book idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Couldn't care less about straightforward fender benders, I've seen enough accident scenes to not worry about those. As an idiot who commutes mainly on motorcycle or bicycle, (potential) reduction in "fender benders" is what I'm most excited about. I don't care if you drive, but the average driver is a hazard and should be in one of those goofy-rear end Waymo cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
If that F150 is driven by AI rather than a drunk moron looking at his phone it won't barrel up behind you at 50 and slam into you without braking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:03
|
|
