|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Agreed, its good that we finally found a way to get people who can't drive to the hospital, which we've been struggling with for years Dear Benghazi2. I have consider you suggest to say "gently caress you and get a ambulance" to everyone that need to go a hospital and can't drive. Like old people, infants, pregnant womens. While I consider your suggestion valuable, and have a point heres the standard reply. No, gently caress You, insensitive clod. Thanks for your feedback.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:In lots of states the ambulance driver is an EMT who has to spend half the ride just driving instead of providing medical care. That would be pretty nice to free up. I mean there's usually more than one for that exact reason
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Tei posted:Dear Benghazi2. Ah yes the insensitivity of pointing out that a thing already exists and that self driving cars doesn't actually fix the problem with that thing and instead creates new ones how dare i
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Why is it so important that this thread assign blame today with only the information reported in the news? Because "told you so"? Solkanar512 posted:It's not about assigning blame, it's about the folks like OOCC who can't ever admit to the possibility that technology might not be 100% awesome in every case. If only it weren't true that human reaction speed is slower than computers... but maybe that isn't what your point is? You're saying... what exactly? BENGHAZI 2 posted:Agreed, its good that we finally found a way to get people who can't drive to the hospital, which we've been struggling with for years Ambulances cause lots of accidents...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:In lots of states the ambulance driver is an EMT who has to spend half the ride just driving instead of providing medical care. That would be pretty nice to free up. Who's providing medical care in your robot car, oocc
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Ah yes the insensitivity of pointing out that a thing already exists and that self driving cars doesn't actually fix the problem with that thing and instead creates new ones how dare i Car accidents are the number one killer of healthy people in this country, where in your hosed up mind is the system ok how it is? BENGHAZI 2 posted:Who's providing medical care in your robot car, oocc Maybe the EMTs who are in the ambulance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Ah yes the insensitivity of pointing out that a thing already exists and that self driving cars doesn't actually fix the problem with that thing and instead creates new ones how dare i [non combative version] Every technology create new problems, this has been true since we invented fire, we invented farming, we invented drinking milk from cows, and so on. Tei fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Mar 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Why is it so important that this thread assign blame today with only the information reported in the news? Because the future of a multi-billion dollar industry is going to be decided based on shitposting on SOMETHING AWFUL DOT COM. Or because people are looking for a reason to get into a slap fight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Who's providing medical care in your robot car, oocc
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Very poor oversight: Maybe the wired article is full of poo poo? Actually look poo poo up if you care to talk about this honestly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I mean there's usually more than one for that exact reason And one is a highly trained specialist that has to drive a car instead of working on the patient and that is a huge waste of resource.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe the wired article is full of poo poo? Actually look poo poo up if you care to talk about this honestly. Maybe? And maybe not? And maybe some other article is full of poo poo and maybe it's not? If you have information that refutes the article then post it. In the mean time I'll choose to believe the Wired reporter over forum user ElCondemn, prone to vague claims and shitposting attacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out what kind of reaction would getting BENGHAZI 2 and Owlofcreamcheese to touch lead to, so far the model predicts a high volume of angry energy and two shitpostrinos
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Maybe? And maybe not? And maybe some other article is full of poo poo and maybe it's not? If you have information that refutes the article then post it. In the mean time I'll choose to believe the Wired reporter over forum user ElCondemn, prone to vague claims and shitposting attacks. The governor of Arizona literally this month changed the rules, and not in reaction to this incident. Other states have also been enacting more regulation as the technology comes closer to wide release. This industry is heavily regulated, nobody is telling companies it's cool to drive around murder cars despite all the fear mongering. I'm not basing my opinion on articles at all, pretending like they're the only source of information is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Teal posted:I'm trying to figure out what kind of reaction would getting BENGHAZI 2 and Owlofcreamcheese to touch lead to, so far the model predicts a high volume of angry energy and two shitpostrinos Him getting swirlied
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:You're an absolute loving moron You are just now coming to this conclusion? He's literally too dumb or too disingenuous to acknowledge that human beings have much slower reaction times when passively engaging in an activity compared to when actively engaging in the same activity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Dickeye will fight anyone but is scared of the robots, the one thing he knows his fists can't beat. Is there a study showing how much safer a driverless car would have to be before the average person trusts it rather than driving theirself? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:You are just now coming to this conclusion? Much slower? It's literally milliseconds of difference, not enough to make a difference at 40mph. Unless you're saying the driver spent many seconds ignoring the road, in which case I've got to agree that people aren't good drivers and kill people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:He's literally too dumb or too disingenuous to acknowledge that human beings have much slower reaction times when passively engaging in an activity compared to when actively engaging in the same activity. And you refuse to admit that the simplest reason that both a human and a system would not react is that the events happened in a way that were actually hard to react to, instead of some weird hyper specific situation where the car went mad and then also the katana wielding driver who totally could have saved the victim with his stunt driving actually just had their reflexes numbed so they could not execute their car kata in time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And one is a highly trained specialist that has to drive a car instead of working on the patient and that is a huge waste of resource. You don't necessarily need to be an EMT to drive the meatwagon, this depends on company and state. And why would they put the extra guy in back versus eliminating the position entirely?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:And why would they put the extra guy in back versus eliminating the position entirely? If he's useless they could replace him, with more space for medicine and equipment or whatever. Otherwise he probably can be doing something more productive for the patient than having all that training and using it to drive a car. If you are worried that they might just make worse ambulances you don't really need any special technology to just have less good ambulances. Just open the door and point at anything at random and they could take that out to save money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And you refuse to admit that the simplest reason that both a human and a system would not react is that the events happened in a way that were actually hard to react to, instead of some weird hyper specific situation where the car went mad and then also the katana wielding driver who totally could have saved the victim with his stunt driving actually just had their reflexes numbed so they could not execute their car kata in time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The governor of Arizona literally this month changed the rules, and not in reaction to this incident. The fact that he signed the executive order is actually referred to in the article. So, first you say that the article is full of poo poo but don't disprove any of it. Then you say that "pretending like the articles are the only source of information is ridiculous" (which nobody claimed) but again you don't provide any opposing source. You're an idiot, and not because you support autonomous cars, it's because you are failing in very simple discussion. I'm trying to plow through the American legalese of the executive order and I can't find anything about sharing testing information. Is it at least transparent to the Arizona government if it isn't to the general public? Again, I'm interested in how many times the backup drivers had to intervene to prevent accidents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:You don't necessarily need to be an EMT to drive the meatwagon, this depends on company and state. And why would they put the extra guy in back versus eliminating the position entirely? In a lot of places EMS personnel are primarily volunteers, so it's not like there's any great need to eliminate "extra" positions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Your hard on for blaming the corpse here is super weird. But you are also, super weird. 130,000+ pedestrians per year are hit by cars. A majority of them happen at night and 70% of them happen with jaywalking. It's a thing that happens, you don't need any elaborate special story for this one. Neither the human or the car reacted, and you can spin out some weird tale that the human could totally have saved her if only the machine had not dulled his reflex but you have no real evidence of that, that this isn't just one of the 5000+ pedestrian deaths that happen every year, with the majority being found to be faultless and caused only by tiny minor 'crimes' (jaywalking). People don't judge their surroundings 100% when entering traffic and traffic is not magic and can not react to things that are not visible ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:In a lot of places EMS personnel are primarily volunteers, so it's not like there's any great need to eliminate "extra" positions. I would love to eliminate bad drivers, EMTs who are actively disrupting normal traffic seem like a great candidate for automation. Owlofcreamcheese posted:130,000+ pedestrians per year are hit by cars. A majority of them happen at night and 70% of them happen with jaywalking. It's a thing that happens, you don't need any elaborate special story for this one. Neither the human or the car reacted, and you can spin out some weird tale that the human could totally have saved her if only the machine had not dulled his reflex but you have no real evidence of that, that this isn't just one of the 5000+ pedestrian deaths that happen every year, with the majority being found to be faultless and caused only by tiny minor 'crimes' (jaywalking). People don't judge their surroundings 100% when entering traffic and traffic is not magic and can not react to things that are not visible ahead of time. It's clear you're just getting off on death cars murdering pedestrians! What an rear end in a top hat! /s
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If he's useless they could replace him, with more space for medicine and equipment or whatever. Otherwise he probably can be doing something more productive for the patient than having all that training and using it to drive a car. If you are worried that they might just make worse ambulances you don't really need any special technology to just have less good ambulances. Just open the door and point at anything at random and they could take that out to save money. In most areas their training is just driving a car anyway so there's not a huge loss in putting them behind the wheel since that's the purpose of their job. Some states have stricter requirements but many are just "has HS diploma / GED & valid license with clean history". I'm not sure what the whole quality of ambulances has to do with anything. Yes you could just start removing things from an ambulance willy nilly and make them worse. What's the relevance of that wrt the discussion at hand about whether self-driving is safer or not? Paradoxish posted:In a lot of places EMS personnel are primarily volunteers, so it's not like there's any great need to eliminate "extra" positions. I imagine there are costs associated with it even if they aren't paid. Extra insurance springs to mind, but even without cost saving factors involved, there is a limit to how many paramedics is effective and at what point adding more is detrimental. At a certain point people are just getting in the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I would love to eliminate bad drivers, EMTs who are actively disrupting normal traffic seem like a great candidate for automation. It's weird how neither of you can get your heads around there being a difference between passive and active engagement and a corresponding response time without it being a conspiracy theory or some insane strawman poo poo that nobody has said, instead of engaging with what they're actually saying, and also not making a million excuses for why it's not bad that someone was hit by a robocar
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Also holy poo poo how do you have EMTs without disrupting normal traffic, even in an ideal world with robot cars they would have to give driving priority to the big truck going wee woo
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:In most areas their training is just driving a car anyway so there's not a huge loss in putting them behind the wheel since that's the purpose of their job. Some states have stricter requirements but many are just "has HS diploma / GED & valid license with clean history". If they don't need the guy driving he can do something more useful, especially if he's in a state where he's required to be highly trained. Or his space can be used for more useful things. if you are worried they could take him out then just have an empty space then they could already do that with anything in an ambulance if that was their goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:It's weird how neither of you can get your heads around there being a difference between passive and active engagement and a corresponding response time without it being a conspiracy theory or some insane strawman poo poo that nobody has said, instead of engaging with what they're actually saying, and also not making a million excuses for why it's not bad that someone was hit by a robocar The conspiracy theory is your certainty that you are somehow sure that this is a case where that thin difference between active and inactive engagement is what lead to the death because you can't have it be that the time was so short that no one could have done anything regardless but you can't have it be so long that someone was being negligent at their job. So you have to believe the accident happened in the exact 100 ms where the driver isn't at fault but could have stopped it if he had been active driving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:I imagine there are costs associated with it even if they aren't paid. Extra insurance springs to mind, but even without cost saving factors involved, there is a limit to how many paramedics is effective and at what point adding more is detrimental. At a certain point people are just getting in the way. There are two people on the truck because you can't really have a single person doing the kind of heavy lifting that often needs to be done with patients who require an ambulance. A fully autonomous ambulance would still need two people onboard. The second person is getting in the way when the first person is wearing some kind of crazy lifting exoskeleton or you have robotic stretchers that self load patients.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:In most areas their training is just driving a car anyway so there's not a huge loss in putting them behind the wheel since that's the purpose of their job. Some states have stricter requirements but many are just "has HS diploma / GED & valid license with clean history". Even then, ambulance drivers (and cops, for what it's worth) often have to do stuff while driving that the rest of us aren't supposed to: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E0DD163BF932A25750C0A9669D8B63&pagewanted=all
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
I get told all the time "your anecdote means nothing, the numbers are the numbers" on this very forum, and that's what this single data point is: an anecdote. Now, if this sort of thing continues to happen, and at a verifiably higher rate than the Average Human DriverTM? Then, yes, that's cause for concern and debate, but at the moment, using this one very tragic but statistically irrelevant event to declare "SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES ARE NOT AND NEVER BE VIABLE WE SHOULD END ALL SUCH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY IN LIGHT OF THIS TRAGEDY" strikes me as chicken little-y and kind of disingenuous. I mean, for example, I personally believe more and more humans-in-spaceships exploration of space is more and more a R&D dead-end, but you don't see me using the Challenger and Columbia tragedies as my evidence for why all human space travel needs to be shuttered ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The conspiracy theory is your certainty that you are somehow sure that this is a case where that thin difference between active and inactive engagement is what lead to the death because you can't have it be that the time was so short that no one could have done anything regardless but you can't have it be so long that someone was being negligent at their job. So you have to believe the accident happened in the exact 100 ms where the driver isn't at fault but could have stopped it if he had been active driving. You don't know what a conspiracy theory is, which is unsurprising because you're just dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I get told all the time "your anecdote means nothing, the numbers are the numbers" on this very forum, and that's what this single data point is: an anecdote. Now, if this sort of thing continues to happen, and at a verifiably higher rate than the Average Human DriverTM? Then, yes, that's cause for concern and debate, but at the moment, using this one very tragic but statistically irrelevant event to declare "SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES ARE NOT AND NEVER BE VIABLE WE SHOULD END ALL SUCH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY IN LIGHT OF THIS TRAGEDY" strikes me as chicken little-y and kind of disingenuous. Do you also handwave those away as being totally unavoidable and actually not a problem with shuttle design
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Why is it that any time robot cars enter any thread all participants voluntarily mush their brains like an Uber victim
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If they don't need the guy driving he can do something more useful, especially if he's in a state where he's required to be highly trained. Or his space can be used for more useful things. if you are worried they could take him out then just have an empty space then they could already do that with anything in an ambulance if that was their goal. No state requires the driver to be "highly trained"; if they happen to be highly trained it is a happy coincidence. But nevertheless, I still don't get the relevance. I never said anything implying worry about anyone taking away valuable space from an ambulance. I really don't get the relevance of any of this. You brought up ambulance drivers in response to Benghazi 2 saying that we already have a way for people without cars to get to the hospital. This is indeed a solved problem right now today; without driverless anything. Automating the driver doesn't actually affect that at all and the idea that the driver would be equivalent to a paramedic is generally false; most often they're barely qualified to even drive (the vast majority of states don't even require special emergency vehicle training). Go ahead an automate the ambulance driving, I just fail to see the relevance to the conversation. Kerning Chameleon posted:I get told all the time "your anecdote means nothing, the numbers are the numbers" on this very forum, and that's what this single data point is: an anecdote. Now, if this sort of thing continues to happen, and at a verifiably higher rate than the Average Human DriverTM? Then, yes, that's cause for concern and debate, but at the moment, using this one very tragic but statistically irrelevant event to declare "SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES ARE NOT AND NEVER BE VIABLE WE SHOULD END ALL SUCH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY IN LIGHT OF THIS TRAGEDY" strikes me as chicken little-y and kind of disingenuous. The shuttle disasters did show that specific mode of transport was a pretty dumb way to haul humans into space though; both for cost of operation purposes and safety. There's a huge difference between anecdotes and small sample sizes as well; it seems you might be confusing the two. Raldikuk fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Do you also handwave those away as being totally unavoidable and actually not a problem with shuttle design I mean, we don't use shuttles anymore anyway, and the problems that caused the accidents were identified and steps were taken to help prevent such issues in future launches. Mistakes were made, and we learned from them. Sucks human life was lost in the process, but that's how it goes sometimes. You can't reasonably expect to anticipate every possible avenue of failure 100% of the time. Accidents happen. By your logic, the problem here isn't self-driving cars specifically, but cars in general and the fact that our society is so reliant on them which, uh, sorry to tell you but the time for the debate on that particular point sailed about a century ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The conspiracy theory is your certainty that you are somehow sure that this is a case where that thin difference between active and inactive engagement is what lead to the death because you can't have it be that the time was so short that no one could have done anything regardless but you can't have it be so long that someone was being negligent at their job. So you have to believe the accident happened in the exact 100 ms where the driver isn't at fault but could have stopped it if he had been active driving. Do the backup drivers have their hands and feet on the commands at all times? Or do they just sit at the wheel, hands resting in the lap or whatever? If it's the latter then your estimate is an order of magnitude too small. IMO half the problem is that the whole process is so opaque. If I were a citizen of Arizona concerned for my safety around robo-cars, what could I do about it or get informed better? There should be an arizona-autonomous-cars.gov web site with all the information that's been missing in the discussion ITT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 09:29
|
|