|
Because this time a robot was sort of in charge of the car! (even though you're still supposed to pay attention and keep your hands on the wheel in case something goes wrong)
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
People will accept far higher risks when they have the illusion of control, or can mentally put themselves into the place of the controller. Some experiments show risk perception differs by a factor of 10 or more, for example more people being comfortable with driving after one drink than with flying in a commercial airliner, even though the statistical risk skews hard the other way. Media biases can exacerbate this, like with terrorism. As a species we'd rather have our hands on the wheel when we die than have a lower chance of dying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
"Mapping every inch of roadway in the world with ground-penetrating radar" isn't even close to being a practical solution. It's just brute-forcing the problem with highly detailed mapping, which is not practical on a global scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
We brute force map the ocean bottom for navigation and one arm of our nuclear deterrent at a global scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We brute force map the ocean bottom for navigation and one arm of our nuclear deterrent at a global scale. we know very little about the ocean bottom, like 98% of it is irrelevant for navigation of any kind
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Mapping every inch of roadway in the world with ground-penetrating radar" isn't even close to being a practical solution. It's just brute-forcing the problem with highly detailed mapping, which is not practical on a global scale. Honestly, that wasn't the part I found incredulous. I mean, that's basically what Google is already doing with street view.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
its comforting to know that the last referenced data of the street im driving on could only be months/years out of date
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Cars kill 1.3 million and injure 50 million people a year, why only start caring now when a car kills someone? It's at this point in my life I have the experience and understanding to know the difference between company cultures that value safety and those that miss the whole loving point, much like your yourself. Why would you ask such a stupid question? Cicero posted:Because this time a robot was sort of in charge of the car! (even though you're still supposed to pay attention and keep your hands on the wheel in case something goes wrong) This is pretty much the definition of meeting effort with no effort. You can clearly see the companies that take shortcuts and don't have any experience with loving up on a scale that kills beside the drive to be "disruptive" is more important. Yet instead of dealing with your industry's lovely culture, you post this instead. Nice work. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:we know very little about the ocean bottom, like 98% of it is irrelevant for navigation of any kind You know that "drone " the Chinese captured and released, what are the dual purposes of the ships that deploy those? We have very good maps of the bottom for all the areas of the ocean that matter and continually update them for one leg of the nuclear traid at a global scale. We do this in a confrontational environment harassed by other navies. Again the point being is, "is X possible?" is almost never the real question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This is pretty much the definition of meeting effort with no effort. You can clearly see the companies that take shortcuts and don't have any experience with loving up on a scale that kills beside the drive to be "disruptive" is more important. Yet instead of dealing with your industry's lovely culture, you post this instead. Tesla's autopilot is not a full self driving solution. It's a driver assistance feature. That's not "lovely culture", it's the same drat thing other car companies do! The only irresponsible thing is probably naming it Autopilot. When Tesla tells drivers they can take a nap when autopilot is enabled and someone dies, then you can complain. Until then, get a clue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/robots-jobs-employees-artificial-intelligencequote:Many of us recognize robotic automation as an inevitably disruptive force. However, in a classic example of optimism bias, while approximately two-thirds of Americans believe that robots will inevitably perform most of the work currently done by human beings during the next 50 years, about 80% also believe their current jobs will either “definitely” or “probably” exist in their current form within the same timeframe. It's coming
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah, it's not like other car companies have driver assist modes that require the driver to still pay attention right? Oh wait, tons of them do. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah, it's not like other car companies have driver assist modes that require the driver to still pay attention right? Oh wait, tons of them do. Read my post again, I'm specifically speaking about tech companies that have little to no experience making vehicles or programming things that can have life altering consequences. Companies that completely lack the culture or standards to keep us safe. Look, folks like you just don't loving get it. You don't understand nor hold yourself to a standard that says, "if you gently caress up, people will be hurt or even die". The fact you can't understand this only serves to prove my point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:People will accept far higher risks when they have the illusion of control, or can mentally put themselves into the place of the controller. Some experiments show risk perception differs by a factor of 10 or more, for example more people being comfortable with driving after one drink than with flying in a commercial airliner, even though the statistical risk skews hard the other way. This isn't about the illusion of control, this is about lovely tech companies that have no idea what it's like to produce products that could kill people. My post wasn't that difficult to understand, most folks here seemed to get just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Yautja posted:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/robots-jobs-employees-artificial-intelligence But we have talked about this before, in this thread. Is not about robots. Is about "Productivity Tools". Any productivity tool that saves 60% work in a team of 100, can get 60 people fired. The tool don't need to do everything, it can be a very specialized tool that do only one thing but save so much work that 40 people can do the work that before required 100 people. Increasing productivity without increasing demand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This isn't about the illusion of control, this is about lovely tech companies that have no idea what it's like to produce products that could kill people. My post wasn't that difficult to understand, most folks here seemed to get just fine. You keep hitting on this point, but the first true consumer AVs are almost certainly going to come from traditional automakers since they're almost all working on them at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Read my post again, I'm specifically speaking about tech companies that have little to no experience making vehicles or programming things that can have life altering consequences. Companies that completely lack the culture or standards to keep us safe. quote:Look, folks like you just don't loving get it. You don't understand nor hold yourself to a standard that says, "if you gently caress up, people will be hurt or even die". The fact you can't understand this only serves to prove my point. Also didn't the investigation into Toyota show that their code was a spaghetti-ish abomination?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah and my point is that so far the one Silicon Valley car company we have has been doing fine overall as far as safety. No, your point is to completely disregard my post and put words into my mouth. Yeah, that code was a clusterfuck, but at least they do things like follow the law, submit themselves to inspections and famously allow anyone on the production line to stop it when they see a problem. Uber isn't doing this poo poo, and Tesla has their own production issues. Paradoxish posted:You keep hitting on this point, but the first true consumer AVs are almost certainly going to come from traditional automakers since they're almost all working on them at this point. That is likely the case, but the time to bring up issues is before this stuff is widespread, not after. I'm mainly concerned about shits like Uber though even Tesla gives me pause given their unrealistic production expectations and reports of build quality issues. I can certainly accept the latter only rises to the level of "might not last long, expensive to repair" rather than "deathtrap", but unrealistic deadlines aren't helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Read my post again, I'm specifically speaking about tech companies that have little to no experience making vehicles or programming things that can have life altering consequences. Companies that completely lack the culture or standards to keep us safe. Car companies make cars that kill more people than any other product ever created. Why are they the gatekeepers on the one true source that can keep us safe? We are told the dead are the eggs that needed breaking to make the omelette of the modern world but we don't really have anything to check that against. Or at least when car companies tell us 1.5 million corpses a year need to be fed into the fire to keep cars running we don't actually know that is actually true and they are really our friends and that it couldn't be 1.1 million if they tried better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Car companies make cars that kill more people than any other product ever created. Why are they the gatekeepers on the one true source that can keep us safe? We are told the dead are the eggs that needed breaking to make the omelette of the modern world but we don't really have anything to check that against. Or at least when car companies tell us 1.5 million corpses a year need to be fed into the fire to keep cars running we don't actually know that is actually true and they are really our friends and that it couldn't be 1.1 million if they tried better. Those 1.5 million corpses a year aren't the price we pay for the modern world, they're the price we pay to not have to sit on the bus next to those people, or even live in the same neighborhood as them. Getting around without cars has been a solved problem for a very long time, right down to the "and it would work so much better if we just spent a bit of money on infrastructure" part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Car companies make cars that kill more people than any other product ever created. Why are they the gatekeepers on the one true source that can keep us safe? We are told the dead are the eggs that needed breaking to make the omelette of the modern world but we don't really have anything to check that against. Or at least when car companies tell us 1.5 million corpses a year need to be fed into the fire to keep cars running we don't actually know that is actually true and they are really our friends and that it couldn't be 1.1 million if they tried better. This exactly. I know there is no way to ever know, but If I had to guess, if we could magically install Tesla's autopilot in every single car that's driving on an interstate highway today we would probably see an immediate and drastic reduction of fatalities. Cars with human drivers are loving death traps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
So if Labour knows what workers face, isn't this the time for Syndicalism? One big general strike to bring Capital to its knees before the workers can be made obsolete? After workers are irrelevant it will be too late for trade unions, syndicalism or socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Car companies make cars that kill more people than any other product ever created. Why are they the gatekeepers on the one true source that can keep us safe? We are told the dead are the eggs that needed breaking to make the omelette of the modern world but we don't really have anything to check that against. Or at least when car companies tell us 1.5 million corpses a year need to be fed into the fire to keep cars running we don't actually know that is actually true and they are really our friends and that it couldn't be 1.1 million if they tried better. You're conflating a car driven by a human with a car driven by programmers that I fear don't take safety seriously enough. I said this before and directly asked you questions about it yet you couldn't even respond to them, why is that? The only "gatekeepers" I've mentioned are companies that embrace and understand what it means to make safety a priority. Uber clearly isn't doing this (have you seen their plans for air taxis?!), I'm on the fence with Amazon and their automated drone deliveries and Tesla seems to be trying and may well come out ok. Google? It's hard to say given that all their testing is internal and they experience twice as many accidents per mile than a human does. I don't understand why you think it's a great idea for companies who skirt basic regulations like Uber to become the unchallenged leaders in the transportation realm. This is a trivial thing for even my tech bro friends to understand, so why is it so difficult for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Google? It's hard to say given that all their testing is internal and they experience twice as many accidents per mile than a human does. Do they experience more accidents per mile, or do they report twice as many accidents per mile?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The only "gatekeepers" I've mentioned are companies that embrace and understand what it means to make safety a priority. I literally have no idea if car manufacturers do or do not take good care of us and our safety. They kill 1.5 million of us a year and I literally have no idea if that is doing a very good or very bad job. I have no idea if they have a safety priority and they could have made twice as much money if they let that slip to 1.6 million a year but care about us and protect us so strongly they don't or if they could have shaved a hundred thousand off a year but their accountants told them they could make 4 cents a year more if they didn't. With nothing to compare to it seems unknowable. Trains and planes and space ships and boats and stuff seem to all kill less people per man hour. But that isn't apples to apples either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
To be fair those other modes usually have stricter licensing requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Estimates are that Volkswagen caused 60 premature deaths per year and generated $450 million per year in healthcare costs through their emissions fraud. I'm not sure what automaker is supposed to be the gold standard but when auto deaths are so frequent it's hard to extrapolate much from one death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Also, to be fair, all auto deaths are not necessarily the fault of manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Cicero posted:To be fair those other modes usually have stricter licensing requirements. Sure, that is why it is impossible to know. We simply have to take on faith the fact that 1.5 million a year is the 'correct' number of deaths. We have nothing else to compare it to. If we let google or some non carmaker make cars totally separate from the car industry it's really hard to say if we would find out that the car industry actually does a super good or super bad or totally average job at protecting us. They can kinda tell us whatever they want is correct and we can't really argue right now with no other frame of referance on what should be expected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
The bigger issue is that nobody in the US really cares. If we did, then even absent better safety performance from car manufacturers, we could easily do much, much better in how we design our streets and roads to reduce traffic fatalities. Heck, even many supposed progressives' response to Vision Zero is nitpicking "well we can't actually literally get to zero traffic deaths across the country".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Less people will die in car accidents, but they will fall in the fault of the car manufacturer. In a way, the driver of automated car is the car manufacturer. This is going to be a problem for automated vehicles. First generation automatic cars will pilot like your grandmother, but after 10 or 20 years, even the worst automatic car will be able to save people from accidents that no human beings whould have prevented. Humans have a very slow reaction speed, vehicles move very fast. In the long term the idea of allowing humans to drive will be consider crazy. Tei fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Animals have been put on trial for crimes such as criminal damage and murder in Europe. The Fourth Circuit in the US used heard an in rem case against a 1985 Nissan, 300ZX, as did the United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile. So why not just have the car itself the actor whose guilt was to be determined. Or the program running it, then if it's found guilty we can execute it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally have no idea if car manufacturers do or do not take good care of us and our safety. They kill 1.5 million of us a year and I literally have no idea if that is doing a very good or very bad job. I have no idea if they have a safety priority and they could have made twice as much money if they let that slip to 1.6 million a year but care about us and protect us so strongly they don't or if they could have shaved a hundred thousand off a year but their accountants told them they could make 4 cents a year more if they didn't. With nothing to compare to it seems unknowable. Trains and planes and space ships and boats and stuff seem to all kill less people per man hour. But that isn't apples to apples either. You're looking at the wrong thing here - this isn't about the question of safety performance being good or not, it's a question of having the experience and understanding of the effects of the design and production of a transportation vehicle. There's the simple issue that these companies are accustomed to following laws like the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and being monitored/tested by various regulatory agencies like the NTSB as well as being subjected to private testing like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests. These companies and the vast majority of their employees* understand that their customers, families and friends will be using these products and in my experience that heavily colors how you do your work. We're comfortable shutting things down, asking for more tests, building in larger margins for error and so on. No one wants to find out that their mistake lead to the death of someone else. These sorts of experiences are difficult to replicate at new sites even for the most experienced companies - some places take years of production to really get going. My concern stems from the fact that the SV companies that want to go whole hog in this (Uber, Amazon drones, Google, Tesla) industry don't have that sort of experience to begin with. Tesla I'm most optimistic about but even then the focus on production rates that dwarf Honda or Toyota is the wrong thing to focus on. Amazon wanting all sorts of exemptions from the FAA experimental flight rules was an absolute loving joke. Google, well who really knows? Everyone seems to lap up their private testing as though it were the gold standard, but if it were a pharmaceutical company no one would accept such results without outside scrutiny. None of the core competencies of these companies involve a heavily regulated industry like transportation. That's the key here. This doesn't mean these companies will never gain that experience or that I think these things will come to pass. All I'm saying is that when your new to this sort of standard, you need to watched like a hawk. You need to have plans for the inevitable failures. You need to focus on safety over disruption. I'm just not seeing that so far. *Compliance will never be 100% but these sorts of deviations are still heavily studied and taught as a lesson for others. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
You guys have drunk 16-year-olds driving around with barely any skill or education in rusted-out shitboxes with bald tires, having a neural network in control can't possibly be any more dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Animals have been put on trial for crimes such as criminal damage and murder in Europe. The Fourth Circuit in the US used heard an in rem case against a 1985 Nissan, 300ZX, as did the United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile. The solution for them is to have a different company making the software. So company A make the car, and company B make the software. Then in a accident you will be against A, then they deflect it to B, and B will find reasons to deflect it to A. Until they have the right framework, they will be much more exposed than they are now. But who cares? we are talking here about the dissolution of the capitalism system itself, the whole building will be on fire at that point. \/ \/ Guavanaut posted:How 'smart' or 'aware' or 'self learning' or whatever does something have to be before we can charge it directly instead of its creator? I don't think is about how smart are. Childrens are smart but you sue the parents if the children break a window. Is about dependency. Tei fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
How 'smart' or 'aware' or 'self learning' or whatever does something have to be before we can charge it directly instead of its creator? How about before the State of Texas can give it the death penalty?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Robots don't work so well after the displaced work force smashes them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 20:25
|
|
central dogma posted:Robots don't work so well after the displaced work force smashes them. All it takes is the state taking the side of capital for the displaced workforce to get broken in turn. The only thing that will make things different this time from the time Luddites smashed frames is that there won't be anywhere else for labor to go besides jail and street riots, and I don't think that will stop anyone unless labor proves amazingly successful at resisting incarceration and being framed as lazy malcontents.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Is there even a unified 3rd party test to certify driver aids and autopilots? Until such legislation and legal framework is in place it's really irresponsible to just throw poo poo out there, especially with the advertising complete with 8 point font disclaimer about the effacy or performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Who will be allowed to fix 'self driving' cars? All the cars and trucks I've owned have been pre-2000s, so the right to repair is pretty simple. You have a socket set and some screwdrivers? You have the right to do most simple repairs. It help to have the Haynes manual and a general clue what you're doing. Anything more involved your local mechanic or workshop of choice can do. With more modern vehicles they started introducing proprietary tools, which I personally think is bullshit and an attempt to milk mechanics and drive out independent shops, and more recently using license based models that say that nobody except them can fix certain parts of a vehicle and throwing around the DMCA. Personally that says to me that IP law is fundamentally broken, and right to repair outweighs their 'right' to keep you tied in to a specific repair chain after you've already purchased the product. But with the 'self driving' or 'self learning' vehicles that all becomes a lot more iffy. What parts of the vehicle would be safe for you to repair? What changes would be allowable without requiring a complete recertification of the vehicle and who would do it? Who would actually own what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:07
|
|