|
Volcott posted:Man, those self-driving trucks can't get here soon enough. Just wait until a self-driving truck accidentally merges into someone and drags them with no way to be stopped.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
Geocities Homepage King posted:Just wait until a self-driving truck accidentally merges into someone and drags them with no way to be stopped. Self-driving trucks would be even easier to stop. If they weren't, they'd be barreling through everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Geocities Homepage King posted:Just wait until a self-driving truck accidentally merges into someone and drags them with no way to be stopped. Science fiction has gone to great lengths to warn us about the dangers of pushing truck technology too far https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68dTwJNvE1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxsFiVRX6BE But on the other hand science fiction has also shown us that truck based technology could end up saving the human race! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCaNe3WYJkU
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Man, those self-driving trucks can't get here soon enough. It will most likely get delayed for decades by transportation lobbyists/UAW/Teamsters etc. Additionally, for the same reason we don't have self-flying commercial jets it'll at most result in having a driver in the seat as a backup. We have the technology to take off, navigate, and land planes autonomously, but people want some dude in the front seat calmly announcing the current time in Duluth after pressing the LAND button. The same mindset will keep commercial drivers in the seats, especially with the help of the lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
MausoleumExtremist posted:It will most likely get delayed for decades by transportation lobbyists/UAW/Teamsters etc. Additionally, for the same reason we don't have self-flying commercial jets it'll at most result in having a driver in the seat as a backup. Those 50k carrots don't care and the companies want their sleepless driving drones So who would lobby against that? Pharma companies? -e- So there is a trucker union? Good luck if they couldn't even fight current conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Those 50k carrots don't care and the companies want their sleepless driving drones The only part where a self driving truck would actually be useful, long hauls on highways, is easy as gently caress and the cheapest part of trucking. It actually makes 0 economic sense to replace drivers with computers, especially since the current best self-driving car prototype requires the roadway to be mapped out to the millimeter and a LIDAR system that costs more than a new car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Planes and Trucks are massively different problems and are not comparable. When truck goes wrong it gets to hit the breaks and park on the side of the road. It has an easy fail safe option. Planes don't. An automated plane doesn't have that. If poo poo hits the fan where is it going to land? How would it choose? I am not talking about selecting an alternate, I mean you are going crash and somehow do it safely. Given the state of software that isn't written for spacecraft like the Shuttle was I don't look forward to the next time it bugs out mid flight. What about if it gets hacked and is hi-jack remotely? Are you going to shoot it down? A hostage taker can fly the plane with no risk to themselves. With zero day exploits you could take entire fleets hostage and crash them at will. Ask yourself, would you trust your life to Windows?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
None of the issues with self driving vehicles really matter since "self driving cars are coming any day now" os the 2017 equivalent of saying "where are the jetpacks?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Planes and Trucks are massively different problems and are not comparable. When truck goes wrong it gets to hit the breaks and park on the side of the road. It has an easy fail safe option. Planes don't. If poo poo has actually hit the fan your odds are bad in a plane no matter who or what is driving. You realize that Sully landing the plane on the Hudson River was very unusual right? If a person is capable of selecting a landing spot, so could a computer. Your objections are valid and will need to be addressed, but it doesn't mean that computer pilots are an overall bad idea and not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Imagine the legal nightmare of being a vehicle manufacturer who is also the driver of every vehicle and responsible for everything they do. lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Spatial posted:Imagine the legal nightmare of being a vehicle manufacturer who is also the driver of every vehicle and responsible for everything they do. lol. Can't we already skip to the trolley problem since that's the direction I think this is going?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Please don't. Fictional problems can wait for a couple of decades until people have solved the innumerable real ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Spatial posted:Please don't. Fictional problems can wait for a couple of decades until people have solved the innumerable real ones. Autonomous cars that operate with no driver input will not exist within the lifetime of anyone reading this, if they ever exist at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Um, excuse me, I think you'll learn they will arrive next year if you ask my 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:It actually makes 0 economic sense to replace drivers with computers, especially since the current best self-driving car prototype requires the roadway to be mapped out to the millimeter and a LIDAR system that costs more than a new car. Maybe stop watching videos from 2012 and start watching some from 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-rK8V-rik&t=1070s You should really watch the whole video. Progress is fast, very fast and everything is constantly getting better. Autonomous cars will be a thing and it won't take 50 years or whatever was predicted 5 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
RabbitWizard posted:Maybe stop watching videos from 2012 and start watching some from 2016: It won't take 50 years because it'll never happen, it's a story companies tell investors. Google in particular is bleeding talent and money. http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/13/14599186/google-waymo-self-driving-salary-compensation-autonomous quote:In 2015, Google’s parent company Alphabet lost a mind-boggling $3.5 billion on “other bets” like the self-driving project, and lost another billion dollars in the last quarter of 2016 alone. The company has a lot of projects in the “other bets” category, so not all can be blamed on self-driving cars, but the decision to spin off the project into Waymo could make the financials look a bit better. Not that it really matters, self driving car tech will literally never be able to be as safe as a human driver and will continue to murder rich idiots until the various companies selling it shut down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:It won't take 50 years because it'll never happen, it's a story companies tell investors. Google in particular is bleeding talent and money. Too bad big car companies like Mercedes, VW or BMW themselves are working on the same problem with similar results to Google's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:It won't take 50 years because it'll never happen, it's a story companies tell investors. Google in particular is bleeding talent and money. Those computers are going to have to work really hard to actually manage to be less safe than human drivers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Tumble posted:If poo poo has actually hit the fan your odds are bad in a plane no matter who or what is driving. You realize that Sully landing the plane on the Hudson River was very unusual right? If a person is capable of selecting a landing spot, so could a computer. Your objections are valid and will need to be addressed, but it doesn't mean that computer pilots are an overall bad idea and not going to happen. poo poo goes wrong all the time on commercial flights, but we never hear about it because most of the failures have well established routines for dealing with them, and of course redundant systems. There's a whole host of YouTube channels that post ATC recordings and this poo poo happens every few days. Engine failures, electrical issues, bird strikes, lightning strikes in air, whatever. What happens next is the human pilot lands the plane safely and no one really gives a poo poo except aviation nerds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:It won't take 50 years because it'll never happen, it's a story companies tell investors. Google in particular is bleeding talent and money. From that article, the talent loss came from paying out so much in bonuses that their engineers piled up enough money to take a risk on other ventures, and the bonuses were for hitting performance milestones. Losing those engineers isn't great for Google, but the loss was a byproduct of the project's rapid progress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
That list of film and television accidents page is the stuff of nightmares.quote:XXX (2002). Vin Diesel's stunt double, Harry L. O'Connor, was killed during filming, in a scene in which he was supposed to rappel down a parasailing line and land on a submarine but struck a bridge at high speed and was killed instantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Too bad big car companies like Mercedes, VW or BMW themselves are working on the same problem with similar results to Google's. Similar results as in no results that would actually work in the real world. Sure, better lane assist and speed matching software is nice but that's a long way away from automation. Toast Museum posted:From that article, the talent loss came from paying out so much in bonuses that their engineers piled up enough money to take a risk on other ventures, and the bonuses were for hitting performance milestones. Losing those engineers isn't great for Google, but the loss was a byproduct of the project's rapid progress. Paying your workers too much isn't a sign of rapid progress, what are you a moron? It's a sign of incompetence. If I paid someone $100 million to create an immortality serum, them quitting and running with the money doesn't mean that immortality is only a few years away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
That was one hell of an anticlimax. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Tumble posted:If poo poo has actually hit the fan your odds are bad in a plane no matter who or what is driving. You realize that Sully landing the plane on the Hudson River was very unusual right? If a person is capable of selecting a landing spot, so could a computer. Your objections are valid and will need to be addressed, but it doesn't mean that computer pilots are an overall bad idea and not going to happen. I don't think a computer now or even in many decades time could or would have selected to land on the Hudson or picked the solution in every other emergency that the pilot pulled everyone asses out of the fire. You are asking people to program intuition and to formulate answers in contexts that are well outside it's normal operation with extremely limited information. There are also many different levels of poo poo hitting the fan. Have fun trying to program them all in. Planes are mostly automated in the sense during normal operations with navigation systems that fly a pre-programmed route using very simple programs. However they are not run completely in this mode as the pilots are more than seat warmers and need to take control time to time to maintain their skills otherwise they would be useless in an emergency. Again this is massively different from a car or truck where you get to hit the red stop button. You are also introducing a massive single point of failure which is completely unacceptable when flying. You would require a near human AI and that comes with all sorts of problems just formulating the idea of how it would work without killing everyone let alone program the thing. Have a look at Computerphile and search for AI on youtube. Just can't just shove a computer in it and call it a day. It's not a question of throwing money and man hours at the problem. Then there are the legal and ethical problems. Who takes responsibility at the end of the day? Given the choice between killing the hundreds passengers or the people on the ground which would it choose? You would have to program it to kill. Who validates the work done when a patch comes out or a new aircraft is supported? Again I ask would you trust windows with your life?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Sammus posted:That list of film and television accidents page is the stuff of nightmares. The IMDB trivia segment on that one makes it even quote:Stunt player Harry O'Connor was killed when he hit a pillar of the Palacky Bridge in Prague, para-sailing during one of the actions scenes. The accident occured while filming the second take of the stunt; O'Connor's first attempt was completed without incident and can be seen in the completed film. Mierenneuker fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Man, those self-driving trucks can't get here soon enough. Pcos bill parachute account spotted
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Those computers are going to have to work really hard to actually manage to be less safe than human drivers. I'm pretty sure I'll never see a computer drive a car down the freeway steering with it's knees because it's busy trying to smoke a bong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Paying your workers too much isn't a sign of rapid progress, what are you a moron? It's a sign of incompetence. If I paid someone $100 million to create an immortality serum, them quitting and running with the money doesn't mean that immortality is only a few years away. Again, they were paid bonuses on the basis of meeting performance milestones. That means that, in Google's estimation, their engineers were making good progress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:I'm pretty sure I'll never see a computer drive a car down the freeway steering with it's knees because it's busy trying to smoke a bong. Instead they drive into walls because the lines weren't repainted right, drive under trailers and decapitate the driver because they thought that an overpass was the sky, drive the wrong way through a one-way tunnel because it didn't recognize the one way signs or simply not move at all because there were clouds in the sky and the neural network had been exclusively trained in sunny California weather.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Then there are the legal and ethical problems. Who takes responsibility at the end of the day? Given the choice between killing the hundreds passengers or the people on the ground which would it choose? You would have to program it to kill. Who validates the work done when a patch comes out or a new aircraft is supported? If a company decides to use Windows for their autonomous whatever, it's clearly their fault if anything goes wrong. And thank you for going down the trolley rail again. I'm pretty sure that any plane accident killing hundred on the ground would also kill the passengers. Improbable Lobster posted:Instead they drive into walls because the lines weren't repainted right, drive under trailers and decapitate the driver because they thought that an overpass was the sky, drive the wrong way through a one-way tunnel because it didn't recognize the one way signs or simply not move at all because there were clouds in the sky and the neural network had been exclusively trained in sunny California weather. Way to go, equalling drive-assist systems to autonomous ones. It should be mandatory that an autonomous car should refuse to work or at least drastically limit its performance if any sensor is giving inplausible data. It will be 100% the owners fault if anything happens due to neglected maintenance. Lurking Haro fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Again, they were paid bonuses on the basis of meeting performance milestones. That means that, in Google's estimation, their engineers were making good progress. Or they reached some bullshit meaningless milestones designed to give their engineers a payout to keep them loyal. Google has a history of doing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Now I feel better about being paid in the 10th percentile for my field, it means the company wants me to stick around and succeed in their goals!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Alastair Reynolds has a short story in the collection Deep Navigation called "On the Oodnadatta" that's about autonomous trucks. It also contains what I feel is his most hilariously bad conceit- the 'mangaroo', a genetically engineered kangaroo with machine pistols grafted to its forelimbs
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
It's gonna be like in "Logan" where the self-driving trucks just blare an alarm at you and don't even try to stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
self driving vehicles will happen eventually, but probably not in a meaningful way for the next fifteen years. there will be some limited deployment of self driving vehicles in specific areas, and new cars will come with increasingly complex self driving behavior. but people will misuse this technology and get killed or kill others, which is going to attract more government regulation that will slow down the deployment and use of self driving technology. especially when it comes to trucks, which have tons of safety regulations already around driver behavior. even in the near future when trucks can be completely automated there will still be a human behind the wheel bored out of their mind tending the autopilot for redundancy like the guy who got killed in the tesla was completely not paying attention as he should have been, since the automation in his vehicle is basically just fancy cruise control and automatic braking. this will happen a few hundred more times
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:like the guy who got killed in the tesla was completely not paying attention as he should have been, since the automation in his vehicle is basically just fancy cruise control and automatic braking. this will happen a few hundred more times Despite what Musk says Tesla explicitly sells their cars as being capable of automated driving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:self driving vehicles will happen eventually, but probably not in a meaningful way for the next fifteen years. there will be some limited deployment of self driving vehicles in specific areas, and new cars will come with increasingly complex self driving behavior. but people will misuse this technology and get killed or kill others, which is going to attract more government regulation that will slow down the deployment and use of self driving technology. especially when it comes to trucks, which have tons of safety regulations already around driver behavior. even in the near future when trucks can be completely automated there will still be a human behind the wheel bored out of their mind tending the autopilot for redundancy I'm ok with a human being forced to sit there while the autopilot does things, that means millions of jobs won't be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Again I ask would you trust windows with your life? No, but I would trust a tuned, trialled and rigorously tested program. Selecting a emergency landing site would not be the hardest problem in the world. One possible solution would be giving the plane a list of green zones where it can land along with the map data it already has. It already has access to its own location via gps. Or you could give it a downward facing camera. It knows its elevation and your camera is of known specifications, combined with a edge detection algorithm you could identify large contiguous areas. Give the plane a minimum area to shoot for, and it could take care of the rest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:self driving vehicles will happen eventually, but probably not in a meaningful way for the next fifteen years. there will be some limited deployment of self driving vehicles in specific areas, and new cars will come with increasingly complex self driving behavior. but people will misuse this technology and get killed or kill others, which is going to attract more government regulation that will slow down the deployment and use of self driving technology. especially when it comes to trucks, which have tons of safety regulations already around driver behavior. even in the near future when trucks can be completely automated there will still be a human behind the wheel bored out of their mind tending the autopilot for redundancy .... and if they do develop the technology sufficiently it'll be implemented someplace in Europe and work pretty much as it was described on the box but it'll never be widely used in the US because it'd be too much work to coordinate changes across all the relevant federal and state departments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:32
|
|