|
GPR doesn't help with a lot of other issues with inclement weather like car and pedestrian detection. Also, those systems are super expensive. I think the model we used on a project was $27,000?
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
BedBuglet posted:And yet... that is how costco makes pizzas. At least in part. yeah this is the "extremely efficient automated processes" side of things and not the "motion capture of an elite chef" side of things. unless you sincerely think elite chefs make pizza by pouring uniform amounts of premeasured sauce out of a tube etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah this is the "extremely efficient automated processes" side of things and not the "motion capture of an elite chef" side of things. unless you sincerely think elite chefs make pizza by pouring uniform amounts of premeasured sauce out of a tube etc. My favorite part of the motion capture system is that all the ingredients were pre laid out, even as far as already being on a utensil. The robot can make a bisque from scratch apparently but it can't portion out its own butter. Revolutionary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
so we just train another robot to act as a sous chef to lay out the ingredients precisely for the first robot, and a third robot to open the fridge door and get the ingredients, and and and
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:unless you sincerely think elite chefs make pizza by pouring uniform amounts of premeasured sauce out of a tube etc. Oh, you mean cake decorating.  (sorry, couldn't help myself)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:For example, take autonomous vehicles. Roads are not designed for robots, they are designed for people. And it's not like we haven't changed what the system was designed for in the past. At one point roads were for pedestrians and horse drawn vehicles and cars were those things the rich drove like maniacs and ran over babies with. Conceptually change what a road is for, (from human drivers to autonomous vehicles) and some of the autonomous vehicle problems become much easier to solve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
ok, do you have any concept of what 'conceptually change what a road is for' means in practice, on an urban network carrying millions of human-driven automobiles a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And it's not like we haven't changed what the system was designed for in the past. At one point roads were for pedestrians and horse drawn vehicles and cars were those things the rich drove like maniacs and ran over babies with. they've been trying to make self driving cars for more than 60 years. the earliest attempts involved radio control and signals embedded into the road itself, literally "changing who a road is for, from human drivers to autonomous vehicles". it doesn't work, because there's a shitload of road in this country and you can't update all of it to provide sufficient coverage for automated vehicles. also, we already have a means of constructing right of way that's perfect for automated control of a vehicle - it's called a "railroad track"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:they've been trying to make self driving cars for more than 60 years. the earliest attempts involved radio control and signals embedded into the road itself, literally "changing who a road is for, from human drivers to autonomous vehicles". it doesn't work, because there's a shitload of road in this country and you can't update all of it to provide sufficient coverage for automated vehicles. also, we already have a means of constructing right of way that's perfect for automated control of a vehicle - it's called a "railroad track" In one paragraph we have: it won't work with an example of why it's a solved problem. To me that means it isn't a question of if it is possible. It's a question of the crossover point for the cost and public (and industry's) desire for it. The position of that crossover point changes as the technology improves. Look at it this way, tech companies design tech kits for business with preexisting systems. Every now and then they create a technology that doesn't work with the preexisting systems but that would work if a new system ( a new business) was designed around it. Now the roads are a massive sunk capital cost so the bar is very high for the whole design a new system around it thing. But it's certainly not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
what the gently caress no, it is not a "solved problem". if spending more money than exists to be spent on technology that doesn't work outside is just a matter of wanting it enough to you, we can eliminate the hazards of the individual commute by putting all the office towers on big wheels and having them slowly roll from house to house picking up workers instead. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:they've been trying to make self driving cars for more than 60 years. the earliest attempts involved radio control and signals embedded into the road itself, literally "changing who a road is for, from human drivers to autonomous vehicles". it doesn't work, because there's a shitload of road in this country and you can't update all of it to provide sufficient coverage for automated vehicles. also, we already have a means of constructing right of way that's perfect for automated control of a vehicle - it's called a "railroad track" If that were true, electric cars wouldn't exist. Yet now most major cities and many rest stations are being equipped with electric charging stations. My apartment complex has them. Or smart lights that regulate traffic lights based on actual traffic. We're talking about things that happen all the time. You'd see intelligent roads taking the same form. Cities upgrading traffic signs to be easily readable by AVs, etc, then it'd spread out from there to major highways. I don't know why you think it's an insurmountable challenge. The point of updating roads for AVs isn't so they will work, we already have that technology, it's so that they work better and safer. AVs already drive slightly better than your average human without smart roads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Electric cars can drive on the same roads normal cars can, they just can't get more than ~20 miles from a glorified DC power adapter. Before there were one or two installed in the city centers, early adopters just charged at home and metered out their commutes, which left them largely unsuitable for leaving town but really nobody's problem except the owner's, who presumably didn't care. Early robocar adopters aren't going to just bring their own traffic lights, and you need more than a couple per major city, and to accomplish this would oblige the public to pay a breathtaking amount of money for no near-term benefit but to make a bunch of private companies' gimmick cars for the idle rich work right, and in the meantime none of those things better get a dirty lens and hit a stroller.
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:what the gently caress The question is not "Can it be done?" It's almost always do we want to do it at associated cost X? I'm telling you companies like Schneider are going to be pushing hard for trucks without drivers when they think the crossover point cost is close enough. A Wizard of Goatse posted:gimmick cars for the idle rich work right, and in the meantime none of those things better get a dirty lens and hit a stroller. State of GA "Automobiles are to be classed with ferocious animals and … the law relating to the duty of owners of such animals is to be applied " "In the 1920s, 60 percent of automobile fatalities nationwide were children under age 9. One gruesome Detroit article described an Italian family whose 18-month-old son was hit and wedged in the wheel well of a car. As the hysterical father and police pried out the child's dead body, the mother went into the house and committed suicide." http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan-history/2015/04/26/auto-traffic-history-detroit/26312107/ The same thing as cars at all at one point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:In one paragraph we have: it won't work with an example of why it's a solved problem. are you drunk? the solved problem is "use a train". i dont know how else you could have read that statement BrandorKP posted:Look at it this way, tech companies design tech kits for business with preexisting systems. Every now and then they create a technology that doesn't work with the preexisting systems but that would work if a new system ( a new business) was designed around it. Now the roads are a massive sunk capital cost so the bar is very high for the whole design a new system around it thing. But it's certainly not impossible. and the technology is "come up with artificial intelligence that can read a human road as well as a human can". no part of that implies changing roads to make it easier for automated cars. you've abandoned your own argument, dude BedBuglet posted:If that were true, electric cars wouldn't exist. this makes no sense at all. electric cars existed a hundred years ago. please make a coherent argument BedBuglet posted:You'd see intelligent roads taking the same form. Cities upgrading traffic signs to be easily readable by AVs, etc, then it'd spread out from there to major highways. I don't know why you think it's an insurmountable challenge. The point of updating roads for AVs isn't so they will work, we already have that technology, it's so that they work better and safer. AVs already drive slightly better than your average human without smart roads. cool mindless tech fetishism but the current, feasible track for self driving cars is to replicate everything that humans do because, suprise, it's way harder to implement standard assistance features across thousands of different jurisdictions also lol at self driving cars being better than the average human when they've only been tested in perfect, pristine conditions this is one of the most brainless self driving car arguments i've seen on this forum in the last few months, i suspect the cargo cult futurism is super strong here boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:also lol at self driving cars being better than the average human when they've only been tested in perfect, pristine conditions Have you seriously not read any of the articles talking about Ford testing their cars in snow or Google expanding testing to the Seattle area to work on rain handling? Not to mention the basic fact that just in general these cars are being tested on real roads with real human drivers, yes they can't handle all the things there yet, but how the heck does that qualify as being tested in "perfect, pristine conditions"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:this makes no sense at all. electric cars existed a hundred years ago. please make a coherent argument boner confessor posted:cool mindless tech fetishism but the current, feasible track for self driving cars is to replicate everything that humans do because, suprise, it's way harder to implement standard assistance features across thousands of different jurisdictions boner confessor posted:also lol at self driving cars being better than the average human when they've only been tested in perfect, pristine conditions boner confessor posted:this is one of the most brainless self driving car arguments i've seen on this forum in the last few months, i suspect the cargo cult futurism is super strong here BedBuglet fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:are you drunk? the solved problem is "use a train". i dont know how else you could have read that statement Any technology is part of a larger system and user case. One (of many) solution is to change the larger system and user case. We did those things to adopt cars in the first place at some point it may make sense to do it to adopt self driving vehicles. That type of conceptual change can take decades after it starts and could either lag a technology or preceed it. In fact changing the system and user cases may even be harder than solving the tech problem. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:Perfect conditions being the key words. Most of the robots have real issues with inclement weather. My old AI professor specializes in vision processing and consults for Lexus on their self driving car. I think the changes required will be implemented and somebody will pay for them, but will not be hard to apply or expensive or ever slow to implement. If automatic cars can only be useable in perfect conditions, then will be used there until they are better at other task. Then society will provide the means to facilitate that autocars to run in any other condition. I don't see a problem here. Time and time again society change slightly to allow for the new technological advancements. Cars require asphalt, and people pay for that asphalt to be placed and is placed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Any technology is part of a larger system and user case. One (of many) solution is to change the larger system and user case. We did those things to adopt cars in the first place at some point it may make sense to do it to adopt self driving vehicles. uh, roads already existed before the mass adoption of automobiles. roads changed very little in comparison to the way people used roads. cars themselves were adapted for roads, the already extant infrastructure, and not the other way round BrandorKP posted:That type of conceptual change can take decades after it starts and could either lag a technology or preceed it. In fact changing the system and user cases may even be harder than solving the tech problem. this is just generic technobabble when we're talking about changing up roadways - which will still be used by manually driven vehicles for decades to come - versus adapting new vehicle technology to the already extant built environment. it is way more reasonable to expect vehicles to conform to present infrastructure than the opposite. for one, self-driving cars could have been implemented decades ago with such a change to the built environment, but it was enormously impractical. second, if we were that willing to modify the built environment, we could easily eliminate cars. you're proposing a solution here to a problem that doesn't actually exist, while indulging in the same old technocratic "X machine will solve all our problems!" which people have been proposing for the better part of a century. with a legacy like that, you really should tone down your expecations
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
I think my biggest concern about autonomous cars (and drones for that matter) isn't the technology but rather the culture of the companies making them. These companies are accustomed to exponential growth, pushing the boundaries, skirting regulations, issuing patches after release and so on. That's fine for software. Yet it sets up some really lovely attitudes, habits and expectations when it comes to designing things that will contain people and transport them at speed in close proximity with others. I work in aerospace, and I like to remind my friends in tech that when one of my company's products crash, it's on the front page of every major newspaper in the world. The majority of the regulations we follow designing, building or maintaining our products were made because someone died. There are museums and memorials scattered all over the world dedicated to those who died because someone hosed up. One museum at Haneda Airport contains personal effects from the victims of JAL Flight 123, including handwritten farewell notes from victims to their families. 520 people died, as well as a maintenance manager and an engineer who both committed suicide for signing off on the faulty repair. I'm told that JAL employees visit each year to honor those who were lost and to remember why you don't cut corners. I know that cars aren't airplanes, but unlike everything else in tech, loving up/going cheap/ignoring regulations will get people killed and the attitudes of tech employees just aren't instilling me with much confidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:uh, roads already existed before the mass adoption of automobiles. roads changed very little in comparison to the way people used roads. Roads built as cars become ubiquitous and roads built as part of the interstate highway system are very different things than pre car roads. There is a poo poo load of design that goes into allowing a cars to safely drive at speed on roads. It is a reasonable thing to eventually expect the same types of considerations that allow for safe use be designed into roads for autonomous vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The majority of the regulations we follow designing, building or maintaining our products were made because someone died. And this is especially true for anything transportation related. It usually takes pretty horrific large scale accidents to get regulation put in place. Any time some one bitches about onerous regulation they should be reminded where regulations come from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
Japanese company replaces office workers with artificial intelligence. Hopefully they'll replace CEOs with robots soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I think my biggest concern about autonomous cars (and drones for that matter) isn't the technology but rather the culture of the companies making them. A good movie to see in theaters just now is "Passengers". All of the ship is automated to the Nth level and the interfaces are sweet, but everything is scripted machines so even these very good interfaces have obvious limitations. I believe is a well made movie about Automation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BWWWQzTpNU The movie is science fiction. What we will probably get is autonomous vehicles made by the people that design interfaces for routers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUlNXEQWCI8 Hardware companies *hate* software. For them software is a expense and they underbudget it. They have all the wrong ideas and wrong opinions. They make hard to use, very limited and weak interfaces with dumb limitations. So if automatic cars are made by companies with a hardware philosophy, the car interface will more like your router than anything in the Passengers movie. Tei fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I think my biggest concern about autonomous cars (and drones for that matter) isn't the technology but rather the culture of the companies making them. Personally I'm looking forward to Trump privatizing the FAA so we can get some of these job killing regulations removed, everyone knows QA is just a cost center!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I think my biggest concern about autonomous cars (and drones for that matter) isn't the technology but rather the culture of the companies making them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:uh, roads already existed before the mass adoption of automobiles. roads changed very little in comparison to the way people used roads. cars themselves were adapted for roads, the already extant infrastructure, and not the other way round Partially right and partially wrong. Early cars were adapted to the roads that were in use. But the roads that were in use at the time were adapted to horses. Don't try to tell me roads changed from dirt/gravel to concrete/asphalt because concrete/asphalt is the ideal surface condition for a horse-drawn carriage. Roads adapted to human-driven cars from horses as human-driven cars became more ubiquitous. Not a stretch to imagine a future where roads adapted to human-driven cars will change as autonomous vehicles become more ubiquitous. This isn't technobabble or future-fetishism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:this is just generic technobabble when we're talking about changing up roadways - which will still be used by manually driven vehicles for decades to come - versus adapting new vehicle technology to the already extant built environment. What? Do you understand what we're talking about when we talk about updating roadways? It's not exactly going to be radical changes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Not sure how long this will be up but funny as gently caress. https://m.twitch.tv/seebotschat
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Well, if you look at Tesla, while they've been somewhat reckless with Autopilot (mostly just by naming it 'Autopilot'), their cars are still extremely safe overall, probably moreso than the industry average. Their biggest mistake here was treating something like that as an open beta test. I know something bad hasn't happened but this really isn't good policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Half-wit posted:Don't try to tell me roads changed from dirt/gravel to concrete/asphalt because concrete/asphalt is the ideal surface condition for a horse-drawn carriage. Paved road networks weren't originally built for cars. Cars took over the lobbying later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Tei posted:A good movie to see in theaters just now is "Passengers". All of the ship is automated to the Nth level and the interfaces are sweet, but everything is scripted machines so even these very good interfaces have obvious limitations. I believe is a well made movie about Automation. It is neither a good movie to see in theaters nor about automation. It's actually about how stalking and kidnapping a woman is totally cool as long as you were lonely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:These companies are accustomed to exponential growth, pushing the boundaries, skirting regulations, issuing patches after release and so on. That's fine for software. Yet it sets up some really lovely attitudes, habits and expectations when it comes to designing things that will contain people and transport them at speed in close proximity with others. If it makes you feel any better, "tech" companies aren't really the ones at the forefront of this push. Google is probably responsible for cementing the idea into the public consciousness with their hobby project, but it's actual automakers like Ford and Mercedes that are dumping money into AV concepts hand over fist. Tesla is the exception I guess, but it's not like they aren't a real car company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I think my biggest concern about autonomous cars (and drones for that matter) isn't the technology but rather the culture of the companies making them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The next time you're on an airplane, and you roll your eyes when they do the demonstration on how to unbuckle your seatbelt, realize that such a warning became mandatory after crash investigators finally figured out why they kept finding charred skeletal remains in plane wreckage with broken thumbs. Yeah, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
RedneckwithGuns posted:So I haven't had time to scan the thread too much, but I have a question for people more acquainted with automation issues than me: The things people have linked are either things that have been around for years, or are machines that will replace pharmacy technicians. reagan fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Walmart apparently is now rolling out its Scan & Go app on Android (before it was iPhone-only) that lets you skip the checkout line: http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/01/09/walmart-finally-rolls-scan-go-app-android/ Still works in only one store, but probably a portent of things to come?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Their biggest mistake here was treating something like that as an open beta test. I know something bad hasn't happened but this really isn't good policy. well there was that navy seal who got decapitated under a semi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Ohio State BOOniversity posted:well there was that navy seal who got decapitated under a semi. Oh poo poo, I totally forgot. Even then, the techbros crawled out of the woodwork like cockroaches to explain how that wasn't really a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Oh poo poo, I totally forgot. Even then, the techbros crawled out of the woodwork like cockroaches to explain how that wasn't really a big deal. Cars kill 1.3 million and injure 50 million people a year, why only start caring now when a car kills someone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:58
|
|
