|
Vegetable posted:Driverless cars are likely better drivers than all of you and are less likely to kill someone over your lifetime Nah. I will never kill or injure anyone with a personal vehicle. My record will remain perfect. Even when I read my phone on the road. Because I don't own one and use transit, something that American cities go out of their way to make impossible. They should spend the money on that instead of the magical thinking that self-driving cars will save us all.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Public transportation is the obvious solution and it was until we stopped maintaining it as a country. Other countries make downtowns hostile to driving and they're both more efficient and safer. Unsurprisingly, electric busses exist and so do electric ground-level trolleys! The problem is already solved. Autonomous electric buses for the combo. It's the perfect use case since they follow set routes
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 12:01
|
|
|
A lot of the arguments in the last page seems to boil down to "theres a lot of human bad drivers killing people in the roads so its ok to allow bad AI drivers to kill people on the roads too"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:A lot of the arguments in the last page seems to boil down to "theres a lot of human bad drivers killing people in the roads so its ok to allow bad AI drivers to kill people on the roads too" Thats a rather odd/bad take. The consistent argument is that if there are going to be cars on the road anyway we're better off as societies having AI drivers that kill less people than human drivers per km driven. Fewer deaths = the goal. Public transport is great but its not an all use scenario. In plenty of European and Asian cities there exist extensive, reliable and very useful public transport networks but cars are still also an integral part of the transportation system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
Blut posted:Thats a rather odd/bad take. The consistent argument is that if there are going to be cars on the road anyway we're better off as societies having AI drivers that kill less people than human drivers per km driven. Fewer deaths = the goal. I dont think anybody is against that goal. The issue is that we still seems pretty far from that and while we are trying to achieve that goal, we have unready AIs testing themselves in the streets and eventually killing people while doing that And than theres people here saying that this aint a big problem because stupid humans texting in their phones can kill people too
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 14:07
|
|
|
Blut posted:Thats a rather odd/bad take. The consistent argument is that if there are going to be cars on the road anyway we're better off as societies having AI drivers that kill less people than human drivers per km driven. Fewer deaths = the goal. Even if the fatalities-per-mile go down, that's not necessarily going to bring down automobile fatalities as well. People are gonna be a lot more willing to go someplace with nasty traffic if they can spend the whole trip watching movies on their phone while the car handles the gridlock for them, which means an increase in total vehicle-miles driven. Robot cars are fundamentally a convenience tool, not a safety tool. They're not meant to make the roads safer, they're meant to make automobile travel easier and more convenient for automobile owners. The theoretical safety effects are a secondary consideration, not their main purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:A pedestrian being mowed down by a car driven by some idiot who won’t stop staring at their phone didn’t ask to participate either but it happens every single day and when it happens it never seems to spur much discussion. What are you talking about? People talk about lovely drivers using their phones while driving all the time and numerous places have passed laws regarding it. Main Paineframe posted:Robot cars are fundamentally a convenience tool, not a safety tool. They're not meant to make the roads safer, they're meant to make automobile travel easier and more convenient for automobile owners. The theoretical safety effects are a secondary consideration, not their main purpose. Driverless cars are meant to reduce the human cost of businesses like freight transport and taxis so that companies can make more money and employ fewer people. Convenience for the common person is a side-effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I dont think anybody is against that goal. The issue is that we still seems pretty far from that and while we are trying to achieve that goal, we have unready AIs testing themselves in the streets and eventually killing people while doing that This. The technology simply isn't ready for public use at this point. We need to have stringent safety standards and have companies pass those standards before being allowed to do a small pilot program, and then eventually grow that program over time in a way that keeps the public safe. That's not some uniquely onerous barrier either; many technologies (medical is the one I have the most experience with) have to go through similar vetting before being able to be sold or used publicly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:This. The technology simply isn't ready for public use at this point. We need to have stringent safety standards and have companies pass those standards before being allowed to do a small pilot program, and then eventually grow that program over time in a way that keeps the public safe. So what you are saying is that there are no deaths due to medical technology post general release not attributed to ignorance in design eliminated through real world use. That being the standard that you are holding automated driving to. Or maybe the better analogy is that all development of medical procedures and technology should be banned until sufficient lab testing is done to guarantee that no member of the public could be hurt or killed by attempting a new medical procedure. It is a bit of a moot point in any event, testing of driver automation has been ongoing for decades now (first autonomous vehicle (AV) tested was like 1977). Starting with ABS and cruise control (each surely with their own fatalities) and onto lane assist, smart cruise and now autonomous driving. It is not without supervision either, California banned Uber from road testing AVs for two years - I guess that is about the same length of time Boeing got its 737Max fleet grounded for dodgy automation that killed three hundred odd (far in excess of what AVs have killed anyway out of the 30k driver driven fatal crashes a year in the US). I think most of the hoopla is because AI is sometimes used instead of driver automation (people having a pathological hate for the phrase) and also the "but they'll take our jerbs" anxiety crew as well as general conservatism (BEVs are opposed for reasons that are hard to understand outside ideological reasons as well).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
So glad the tax money I pay to NYC goes to this, absolutely phenomenal, thanks Eric Adam. It's like when you're just starting out in X-COM so you get one of the tanks to send out first to cover your squad but here the whole squad is defending tank?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
So it just rolls around and records? Wouldn't a CCTV system be more reliable and cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:So it just rolls around and records? Wouldn't a CCTV system be more reliable and cheaper? don't forget the robot gets paid a wage for its labour too
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:So it just rolls around and records? Wouldn't a CCTV system be more reliable and cheaper? Or body cams, hmmm...
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Ruffian Price posted:Autonomous electric buses for the combo. It's the perfect use case since they follow set routes Only if its called Trolly and goes Ding Ding! When you talk to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:So what you are saying is that there are no deaths due to medical technology post general release not attributed to ignorance in design eliminated through real world use. That being the standard that you are holding automated driving to. No, what they are saying is "We need to have stringent safety standards and have companies pass those standards before being allowed to do a small pilot program, and then eventually grow that program over time in a way that keeps the public safe". That's a very different thing from what you're rewording their post to say, and I'm not sure why you tried to rephrase the post, because the original wording is very straightforward and easy to understand, and I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable stance either. Then again, you follow it up by throwing around a bunch of unrelated stuff like cruise control to defend the testing of autonomous vehicles with little to no driver supervision, and then dismissively accuse anyone uncomfortable with the problematic behavior of the AV industry of having a "pathological hate" for the phrase "AI" or being members of a "'but they'll take our jerbs' anxiety crew". I feel like that might be a little unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:So what you are saying is that there are no deaths due to medical technology post general release not attributed to ignorance in design eliminated through real world use. That being the standard that you are holding automated driving to. You're not being nearly as clever as you think you are. Of course there is risk. There is always risk. The point is that this stuff should be vetted thoroughly before being released into the wild, not just released because "disruption!" or whatever. Medical is also one of the worst possible things for you to try to focus on because the standard for medical is that the new technology is safer than existing technologies. You have to, through clinical trials, prove that your new product is substantially safer and more effective than the existing product. And clinical trials are not something that you get to do immediately - there are years of work required to get to the point where you're allowed to even try to use the technology on patients in a very limited setting, let alone in a clinical trial. Granted, this is also based on the risk that the product presents to a patient - a tongue depressor requires relatively little testing as it poses virtually no risk; a class III implantable medical device requires a hell of a lot vetting because it has a very high risk of killing someone. So if a procedure currently has a 50% chance of killing someone, and the new tech has a 40% chance of killing someone, the new tech will be allowed to go to market, though even then the adoption will be slow as doctors are very, very cautious about new technology, and there are hurdles to overcome with regards to training, insurance, and the like. The point is that vetting and testing is a big loving deal and is something that is done very frequently in other industries. It's not some uniquely onerous burden that we require these companies to properly test things before putting them on a road accessible by the public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Plus, I don't know why everyone just assumes that driverless cars are gonna be safer. According to who? The lying liars who lie about everything and break the law and lie some more for the sake of disruption? gently caress you, prove it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Jen heir rick posted:Plus, I don't know why everyone just assumes that driverless cars are gonna be safer. According to who? The lying liars who lie about everything and break the law and lie some more for the sake of disruption? The theory of driverless cars being safer is predicated on a future where every car is driverless. Cause humans are loving idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:The theory of driverless cars being safer is predicated on a future where every car is driverless. But "every car is driverless" is as unlikely of a scenario as America embracing public transit and less car dependent cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
Yes we have mass transit in Europe, I know because I work for one. My work consists of watching trolleys go and if there's people in the way, pull a switch to change tracks, meanwhile making instant moral decisions on who gets to live and who doesn't. It sucks 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Yes we have mass transit in Europe, I know because I work for one. I didn’t know Chidi Anagonde was real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:The theory of driverless cars being safer is predicated on a future where every car is driverless. I see no evidence that A.I. aren't also idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:The theory of driverless cars being safer is predicated on a future where every car is driverless. A world where every vehicle is driverless is a world where a state-level actor can and will eventually cause apocalyptic levels of damage by attacking those systems. Imagine if even 1% of the vehicles in the US were to start accelerating as fast as possible while sharply turning left and right at random. How many tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands if not millions of injuries would happen in the US due to that? Does anyone really think auto makers, especially clownshows like Tesla, have those systems sufficiently protected or the willingness to spend billions preemptively to ensure that safety exists?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
honestly i think ransomware would be more likely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:A world where every vehicle is driverless is a world where a state-level actor can and will eventually cause apocalyptic levels of damage by attacking those systems. Pretty sure this is already a potential threat for existing modern cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:The theory of driverless cars being safer is predicated on a future where every car is driverless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
But not all cars, as would be the case in a driverless future. Right now you've still got mostly analog vehicles sharing the road with computerized models. Short of violating the laws of physics there's no one vulnerability to exploit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
We only have Elon Musk's word that AI-driven cars are safer. He's not releasing data. Do you feel like trusting Musk about anything?Kwyndig posted:So has there actually been a true driverless car fatality yet or is it all just Teslas in autopilot mode running down children. e: I was wrong. Teslas are Level 2. There's one Level 4 on the market, but it's only allowed to be used in urban areas. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Driverless cars are already safer now, when there are human drivers around. According to who? loving prove it. Jen heir rick fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
Jen heir rick posted:Plus, I don't know why everyone just assumes that driverless cars are gonna be safer. According to who? The lying liars who lie about everything and break the law and lie some more for the sake of disruption? Driverless cars theoretically could be safer, and people dreaming about how technology will make everything better tend to default to imagining the best-case scenarios and not really considering how things could potentially go wrong. For example, driverless cars could theoretically mount sensors that perform better than the human eye in adverse conditions (particularly darkness). They theoretically have a much faster reaction time than humans. They theoretically have an infinite attention span. And so on. It's just that those theoretical advantages often don't survive contact with the real world, especially when it comes to edge cases and programmer fuckups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:07
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:We only have Elon Musk's word that AI-driven cars are safer. He's not releasing data. Do you feel like trusting Musk about anything? Waymo is level 4. You can't buy one, but they are definitely on the street
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Waymo is level 4. You can't buy one, but they are definitely on the street Did not know!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Driverless cars theoretically could be safer, and people dreaming about how technology will make everything better tend to default to imagining the best-case scenarios and not really considering how things could potentially go wrong. It reminds me of a saying/joke. You know what the difference between theory and reality is? In theory, there is no difference, but in reality, there is. People should keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
Jen heir rick posted:According to who? loving prove it. I don’t know what you’re so upset about though. It’s pretty well established that human drivers are awful, particularly in America. Road traffic is the leading cause of death. It’s not surprising to anyone that a fairly conservative robot driver might be safer. It may not get there faster, and it may create other problems, but the presumption of superior safety is not a controversial one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I don’t know what you’re so upset about though. It’s pretty well established that human drivers are awful, particularly in America. Road traffic is the leading cause of death. To date, Waymo has been available in San Francisco or Phoenix, with Los Angeles and Austin coming soon. Test-drives in two major American cities isn't something you can compare to nationwide driving statistics. That's a pilot project, and you can't generalize from a pilot project to "it's a solved problem".
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Human drivers are bad. We all know that. The question is whether anything better is available. You can't say "AI is better than people" today unless you have a specific AI you're talking about. Like, the concept of an AI car is definitely better than the concept of a human driver, but that's irrelevant. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
The real thought experiment is to imagine we only have Waymo cars right now and the debate was about whether to let humans take the wheel. We would be absolutely insane to allow it. Contemplating an immense investment in the bureaucracy of licensing and training, tolerating the ludicrous accident rates of novice drivers, and knowing the ingrained cultural practice of consuming alcohol… I enjoy a good drive but you gotta be pompous as gently caress to think putting yourself on the road is in any way good for society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:The real thought experiment is to imagine we only have Waymo cars right now and the debate was about whether to let humans take the wheel. We would be absolutely insane to allow it. Contemplating an immense investment in the bureaucracy of licensing and training, tolerating the ludicrous accident rates of novice drivers, and knowing the ingrained cultural practice of consuming alcohol… I enjoy a good drive but you gotta be pompous as gently caress to think putting yourself on the road is in any way good for society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:The real thought experiment is to imagine we only have Waymo cars right now and the debate was about whether to let humans take the wheel. We would be absolutely insane to allow it. Contemplating an immense investment in the bureaucracy of licensing and training, tolerating the ludicrous accident rates of novice drivers, and knowing the ingrained cultural practice of consuming alcohol… I enjoy a good drive but you gotta be pompous as gently caress to think putting yourself on the road is in any way good for society. Au contraire, it's absolutely insane to ever assume this would be correct. How the gently caress are people going to get to places waymo does not cover or handle when* waymo has a failure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:Waymo’s driverless cars experienced 76% fewer accidents than human-driven cars based on a recent study using insurance data. Vegetable posted:I don’t know what you’re so upset about though. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:54
|
|