|
exploded mummy posted:We just did in Las Vegas and it immediately ran into a truck. boner confessor posted:yes, i know you have no idea, you dont need to keep repeating yourself
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Sorry "parked and didn't try to get out of the way of a truck backing up"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:Sorry "parked and didn't try to get out of the way of a truck backing up" A car parked by a human doesn’t get out of the way of a truck backing up, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Cicero posted:
So your argument for "they will be everywhere soon" is "well a bunch of companies are spending money on them". Well that sure is a thing. I guess that means we'll have all diseases cured soon too, because companies are spending a bunch of money on that. The companies working on the problem have serious economic incentives to oversell how soon such vehicles are available, by saying things like "just another 5 years! just another few years!" because everyone else is saying the same thing and the promises have a way of being forgotten when the next "we're 5 years away!" pops up. You know, like how we've been 30 years away from fusion powering everything for 60 years now. Cicero posted:That post makes, like, zero sense. "These cars won't hit mass adoption within the next 3-5 years, therefore they won't exist on the road." You okay there buddy? None of them exist on the road now, so it's highly unlikely they'll be available for consumers to buy in 3-5 years. Because again, once you actually figure out a working system, it still needs several additional years of testing and recertification to be something safe for the general public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:None of them exist on the road now, so technically some of them have wheels on a paved surface, so... i'm on your side here fishmech but you of all people should know to find and eliminate these rhetorical loopholes
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Being available for personal purchase will likely lag being available for commercial uses (like taxis) by several years, but we will likely see commercial self-driving taxis in multiple major metros within 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So your argument for "they will be everywhere soon" is "well a bunch of companies are spending money on them". Well that sure is a thing. I guess that means we'll have all diseases cured soon too, because companies are spending a bunch of money on that. quote:The companies working on the problem have serious economic incentives to oversell how soon such vehicles are available, by saying things like "just another 5 years! just another few years!" because everyone else is saying the same thing and the promises have a way of being forgotten when the next "we're 5 years away!" pops up. You know, like how we've been 30 years away from fusion powering everything for 60 years now. quote:None of them exist on the road now, so it's highly unlikely they'll be available for consumers to buy in 3-5 years. Because again, once you actually figure out a working system, it still needs several additional years of testing and recertification to be something safe for the general public. So what's your prediction? 2030? 2040?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yes, sometimes products get shelved or whatever, sometimes technology doesn't live up to the hype. Duh. But so far there hasn't been any indication that's true for self-driving cars. Since Google initially made waves when they announced they'd been testing on California highways, there's been steady progress and more and more companies, including the major automakers, are working on the problem seriously, and they pretty much all agree that it's feasible and a gamechanger. You keep saying, in fewer/shorter words, "Google promised it, therefore any skepticism is the mark of a modern luddite" and it's farcical. You've got some outside experience or ulterior motive, it's ugly when you take simplistic potshots and don't contribute from that font of knowledge you're leaning on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Oh yeah, those multiple properties I listed are definitely reducible to "companies are spending money on the problem", stunning insight as always fishmech. They are though. Your entire argument is "well people are working on it, so it will happen soon". Again, if that's what was required to make things happen, literally every disease would be cured by now. It's not in consumer testing right now. It doesn't work. Nobody has something with the capability required. They do not exist on the road right now, being able to work on a tiny slice of the roads in ideal weather etc does not count. Look, again, how that bus was in an accident in the first day on the road. My prediction is it's going to be way longer than you think, because it's actually extremely hard to make something that can react to the way humans are driving, and it'll be even harder to sidestep that issue by mass-converting the vehicle fleet of the country to other self-driving vehicles in order to eliminate that issue. Or the even more expensive situation of changing the road surfaces/roadside structure etc to have the kind of radical improvements in authenticated information on where to drive, what other stuff is around you, this section of road was just declared off limits - move immediately, sort of stuff that would remove many of the harder issues from needing to be handled by individual cars over to more centralized system s where they could be easier to implement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Thanks for tossing the ableist slur for questioning if your abject optimism that continues to degrade the quality of discussion in this thread, really brings me over to your side. They began the project in 2009 and every announcement has been the same breathless optimism without mentioning caveats like "only half a mile in MV where we have a daily sub-centimeter LIDAR map," skepticism is thoroughly warranted. here's a fun self driving car article from 2013 that says we will definitely see them released to consumers by 2018 at the latest https://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-09/google-self-driving-car featuring anthony levandowski, the guy who founded the "way of the future" religious organization and is in the middle of the uber-waymo lawsuit it's more difficult to find a laudatory fluff article which DOESN'T have a laughable prediction than one that does
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:They began the project in 2009 and every announcement has been the same breathless optimism without mentioning caveats like "only half a mile in MV where we have a daily sub-centimeter LIDAR map," skepticism is thoroughly warranted. Skepticism is certainly warranted, but they've clearly made progress in a reasonable timeline from 2009 and limited to MV with 2-human drivers to now where they're testing in multiple states, have a simulation track to test abusive/illegal/strange/limit situations, and have self-driving vehicles driving with no human backup drivers on real roads in one suburb. Waymo has been likewise doing the legwork on outreach to law enforcement and the community. This can certainly still fail, but they're doing all the legwork that indicates they will rollout a self-driving taxi service in Phoenix within 12 months. And Waymo is nowhere near the only major player investing massively in self-driving vehicles they're just the one trying to get there first. But GM retooled one of their factories to be able to produce self-driving models, this isn't just some silicon valley fad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:this isn't just some silicon valley fad. it doesn't help your argument to deliberately misinterpret the people you disagree with. nobody is saying this can't happen, everyone is saying that the current orthodox discussion of self driving cars is widely optimistic and prone to the same sort of exaggerated promised that have been circling around self driving cars for decades. it's a keystone of american futurism, the car that drives itself
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it doesn't help your argument to deliberately misinterpret the people you disagree with. nobody is saying this can't happen, everyone is saying that the current orthodox discussion of self driving cars is widely optimistic and prone to the same sort of exaggerated promised that have been circling around self driving cars for decades. it's a keystone of american futurism, the car that drives itself Ok, but people are saying we won't see them on the road for 3+ years, when that is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary just because past predictions were wrong. You can find an article from GM in the 1950s about a self-driving car, but you can't find a 1950s article from GM about how they have already retooled a factory to manufacture self-driving vehicles at assembly line scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ok, but people are saying we won't see them on the road for 3+ years, when that is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary just because past predictions were wrong. i think you're playing real fast and loose with the definition of self driving car here if you're lumping in driver assist technologies past predictions being wrong is actually a very good reason to doubt current predictions, especially if the same incentives to be overly optimistic or even dishonest are still in place. nobody wants to be the carmaker who says "actually, we think it will be closer to ten years..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i think you're playing real fast and loose with the definition of self driving car here if you're lumping in driver assist technologies I'm not, GM has hardware finalized on production models: https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/gm-and-cruise-announce-first-mass-production-self-driving-car/ quote:Kyle Vogt, CEO and founder of Cruise Automation, revealed very big news for his company and its owner GM, which acquired the startup last year. The news is that they’re ready to mass produce a vehicle ready for self-driving, with everything on board they need to become fully autonomous vehicles once the software and regulatory environment is ready to make that happen. quote:past predictions being wrong is actually a very good reason to doubt current predictions, especially if the same incentives to be overly optimistic or even dishonest are still in place. nobody wants to be the carmaker who says "actually, we think it will be closer to ten years..." But again this isn't just everyone hyping something, you do see very large automakers, like Toyota, admitting they're behind the curve and will need until 2025-2030s to bring self-driving models to market. I agree that consumer-owned devices will be later (and maybe never) but we're going to see self-driving vehicles on the road in a fleet fashion very soon. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
I'm already missing the back and forth about how busy a mall really is. Edit: Oh, that's the other thread that keeps getting distracted by people trying to out fishmech fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
i suggest you read between the lines here... quote:“Today, we’re announcing the first production design of a self-driving car that can be built at massive scale,” Vogt said. “And more importantly, these vehicles can operate without a driver.” so, the carmaker is saying they're ready to begin the design and fabrication of the hardware parts of a car, and all they need to do is figure out the self-driving part (tbd) and it's ready to go! yeah, i dont share your same optimism. i mean, i am not as enthused by the large organization which manufactures cars claiming that they have all the tools necessary to begin manufacturing a different kind of car
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
What's that horrible noise?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:so, the carmaker is saying they're ready to begin the design and fabrication of the hardware parts of a car, and all they need to do is figure out the self-driving part (tbd) and it's ready to go! No, they've finished design and fabrication of the hardware and have actually made a number of vehicles with all the sensors, processing hardware, data storage, physical user-interface, etc for self-driving. That's a massive step to take as a major automaker if they don't have confidence the software is close to ready. And again, it isn't like GM is the only competitor readying for production of fleet-use self driving vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No, they've finished design and fabrication of the hardware and have actually made a number of vehicles with all the sensors, processing hardware, data storage, physical user-interface, etc for self-driving. That's a massive step to take as a major automaker if they don't have confidence the software is close to ready. no it isn't the sensors and other hardware is the easy part. and it's also useful for driver assist stuff like lane keeping and automatic braking that isn't full self driving, which could come out in six months or six years. heck, just selling the car as "self-driving capable" would be enough to boost sales among early adopters
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Skepticism is certainly warranted, but they've clearly made progress in a reasonable timeline from 2009 and limited to MV with 2-human drivers to now where they're testing in multiple states, have a simulation track to test abusive/illegal/strange/limit situations, and have self-driving vehicles driving with no human backup drivers on real roads in one suburb. So they went from one city with a constrained climate to several cities in several states, a closed track and a small suburb's roads. Do you not see how there's still a ton more to go in just covering say, conditions present in the continental US? Like say winter snowfall onto Deadman Pass on I-84, one of the most dangerous parts of the interstate system yet also the major route from most of the east of the country (outside of the northernmost states of the midwest and plains) to Portland, OR. Or the heavy merging and navigation issues involved in taking the Holland Tunnel out of lower Manhattan through most of the day or night. Or evacuating once the high winds and rain have already picked up, trying to flee a hurricane along the Gulf Coast. And so on. Trabisnikof posted:No, they've finished design and fabrication of the hardware and have actually made a number of vehicles with all the sensors, processing hardware, data storage, physical user-interface, etc for self-driving. . Wrong. They've finished what they think might be needed, to work with self-driving software that's nowhere near ready. It's very possible that they will need to make further changes, especially to processing hardware and data storage, but also "all the sensors", to build a road-ready car. It's a platform that will much more amenable to testing things until something that works can be created, it's certainly far better than the current situation of low-run production vehicles, or bolting on a bunch of bulbous sensor arrays to the top, side, and underside of an existing car. But it's very unlikely that the GM SD1 will be the actual car they sell when it's completed, anymore than the GM EV1 was GM's full release electric car (the Bolt looks significantly different, to say the least).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Self driving vehicles can be usable in cities for taxi service without having to be able to evacuate from hurricanes or traverse snowy passages. We will likely see deployment of self driving vehicles in cities as fleet taxis in under 3 years. Self driving vehicles will still be a massive change to urban and suburban transit even while they are limited to well mapped roads and fleet use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We will likely see deployment of self driving vehicles in cities as fleet taxis in under 3 years. lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Better get every inch of that cab on surveillance. Never underestimate what people will do when they think they aren't being watched.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Better get every inch of that cab on surveillance. Never underestimate what people will do when they think they aren't being watched. A while back I was doing some work with a UX firm, really neat folks. They'd done stuff with amusement parks, airports, all kinds of public spaces. They said that cabs are really, really high up the list of places folks inadvertently lose things, way out of proportion to busses and other forms of transit. It has to do with the relationship to the space, you're very certain that the bus seat is a public space and not yours. But the back seat of a cab? They're renting the usage, it has a much more personal feel and folks are likely to sprawl out and feel comfortable tossing a phone on the next seat. Then forgetting it on the way out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Self driving vehicles can be usable in cities for taxi service without having to be able to evacuate from hurricanes or traverse snowy passages. We will likely see deployment of self driving vehicles in cities as fleet taxis in under 3 years. Self driving taxi fleets! But not available north of 35 degrees latitude or higher than 500 feet altitude because that darn snow is just too tricky. Also not available in every city from Brownsville to New Haven because dealing with high winds and rain is just too difficult. You're totally covered otherwise though. (Your criteria of "well it doesn't need to handle snow or tropical storm force wind and rain" excludes 8 of the top 10 metropolitan areas easily.) Does it take effort for you to be this oblivious? I also like how you ignored the pretty major problem of safely navigating and merging with angry human drivers in a busy urban environment like Lower Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
I had to take a few defensive driving classes as part of the license retention process in Israel and acquisition here in the US. And one thing that sticks in my mind is that there is no accident where any individual party is 100% at fault. "That other driver shouldn't have done that" is not an excuse, it might mean they're more responsible, but in most cases better awareness and behavior on your end would have stopped the accident. Furthermore, people driving commercially have an even bigger responsibility to be proactive, either because they are driving something less maneuverable/dangerous (trucks, especially with dangerous materials) or because there are a lot of passengers (buses and large cabs). For the equivalent of a commercial bus driver to respond to an incoming truck with "welp, guess I'm going to just stay here because that's legally allowed" is absolutely unacceptable. A human driver doing the same thing would be at risk to lose their license.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I had to take a few defensive driving classes as part of the license retention process in Israel and acquisition here in the US. And one thing that sticks in my mind is that there is no accident where any individual party is 100% at fault. "That other driver shouldn't have done that" is not an excuse, it might mean they're more responsible, but in most cases better awareness and behavior on your end would have stopped the accident. Furthermore, people driving commercially have an even bigger responsibility to be proactive, either because they are driving something less maneuverable/dangerous (trucks, especially with dangerous materials) or because there are a lot of passengers (buses and large cabs). ...so for car accidents involving only a single individual, do you have to go out and find someone else to blame?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:...so for car accidents involving only a single individual, do you have to go out and find someone else to blame? Add a caveat "involving more than one person". All right? Happy?  (Sometimes even inanimate objects are placed in locations which could have been chosen better, though)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:...so for car accidents involving only a single individual, do you have to go out and find someone else to blame? Fishmech you accidentally logged in to your alt
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Add a caveat "involving more than one person". All right? Happy? you also forgot "was drunk or high as hell" or "medical emergency" etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Cicero posted:No, it's usually around the corner when it's nearly good enough to launch, like it currently is for self-driving cars. You sound like the kind of person who would be interested in the Moller Air Car...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No, they've finished design and fabrication of the hardware and have actually made a number of vehicles with all the sensors, processing hardware, data storage, physical user-interface, etc for self-driving. That's a massive step to take as a major automaker if they don't have confidence the software is close to ready. Carnegie Mellon had the hardware worked out in the early 1990s, I saw their Navlab system drive their HMV autonomously with my own eyes. The software wasn’t sufficiently worked out then for general autonomy, and almost 25 years later it’s still nowhere close. GM is building cars with sensors and lots of CPU onboard? That means sensors and CPU are cheap now, not that general autonomy is around the corner. Because if it was you can bet it’d show up at the high end first, and at quite a premium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
CMU's focus was the DARPA Grand Challenge so not really a fair comparison most of their self-driving team got poached by Uber which apparently is a poo poo show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
So, it turns out there may be a reason Twitter doesn't really worry about neo-Nazis. http://twitter.com/UnburntWitch/status/929070660000743425 https://twitter.com/MultipleNights/status/929087986569846784 Jack Dorsey follows Mike Cernovich, Notch, The Federalist, Scott Adams, and Bill Mitchell. Noticing a trend there? Meanwhile, London tells Uber to gently caress off, what you have there are employees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Twitter is literally owned by the alt-right you say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Twitter is literally owned by the alt-right you say? At the very least, they wake up together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:There is some sort of process because low tax continually fails it. I'm starting to wonder if the individuals involved in keeping the somethingawful domain on the last page of google search years ago are now working at twitter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'm starting to wonder if the individuals involved in keeping the somethingawful domain on the last page of google search years ago are now working at twitter. This happened? Don't regdate shame me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Don't regdate shame me. I think at this point not having been here 10+ years like the rest of us should be a badge of honor
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 00:13
|
|
