Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

How many quarters after Q1 2016 till Marissa Mayer is unemployed?
	1 or fewer
	2
	4
	Her job is guaranteed; what are you even talking about?

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

We should identify drivers who are worse than today�s autonomous cars and make it illegal for them to drive themselves. Then we should identify the drivers who are better and make it illegal for them to cede the wheel.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 01:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 17:30

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Vegetable posted:

Waymo�s driverless cars experienced 76% fewer accidents than human-driven cars based on a recent study using insurance data.

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.

That study was run and released by Waymo themselves, who have not yet submitted the data behind that study to independent peer review. Given that Waymo's cars haven't been operating completely driverless for very long, and operate only in two cities, it's quite early to say that this is good data.

As for the rest, this is just totally unsupported opinion. You say that human drivers are awful (compared to what???), then say that robot drivers are "fairly conservative" (are they??? compared to what???), and then say that there should be a presumption of superior safety (why?????). You're just throwing poo poo out there with no backing whatsoever and acting like it's fact.

But let's move away from the theoretical ideal of potential robot cars, and look at the actual driverless cars and how they're behaving on our streets right now*:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/self-driving-cars/

quote:

San Francisco firefighters were battling a two-alarm apartment blaze on the corner of Hayes and Divisadero streets during a recent Sunday morning when a driverless Cruise car entered the active firefighting scene and nearly ran over fire hoses on the street.

Firefighters at the scene stood in front of the car to try to get it to stop, but the autonomous vehicle came to a halt only after one of them smashed the Cruise car�s front window amid the chaotic effort to put out a fire that displaced 25 people, according to city transportation officials.

City officials warned state regulators this month that disruptions like that Jan. 22 incident �could increase very significantly� in San Francisco if they allow Cruise, Waymo and other self-driving taxi companies to expand fare service without restrictions.

In letters to the California Public Utilities Commission seeking to curtail their expansion, the city�s Municipal Transportation Agency and County Transportation Authority documented at least 92 incidents between late May and December where self-driving taxis created mayhem on city streets � disrupting traffic, Muni transit and emergency responders.

Sept. 22, 10:10 p.m.
A Cruise vehicle entered a bus lane, stopped next to a Muni bus near the intersection of O�Farrell and Franklin streets and blocked traffic for 21 minutes, according to the letter. There were no collisions involving Cruise vehicles that night, a spokesman for the company told televison station KRON, which reported the incident.

Sept. 23, 9:07 p.m.
Five Cruise autonomous vehicles blocked southbound Mission Street just north of the intersection with 29th Street. One of the cars stopped on the central double yellow line, partially blocking an opposing lane of traffic. Traffic was stopped for at least 13 minutes.

Sept. 30
A Cruise vehicle came to a stop after nearly colliding with a Muni N-Judah train at the intersection of Carl and Cole streets. The Cruise car blocked light-rail tracks in both directions for close to seven minutes.

The agencies� letters represent the most detailed accounting to date of self-driving cars� disruption in San Francisco and included a map showing several incidents were �concentrated on streets critical to the function of the city�s transportation network.� The letters also come as state regulators consider whether to give General Motors-backed Cruise the final approval it needs to operate fare service in San Francisco without any time or geofencing restrictions.

Last year, California regulators allowed Waymo to test its cars in San Francisco without a safety driver and gave Cruise permission to charge for driverless rides in roughly 30% of city streets between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. � a time period when there�s less car and pedestrian traffic.

City transportation officials have, for years, raised concerns with state and federal regulators about the expansion of self-driving taxis. Their latest correspondence underscores the tension between agencies overseeing city streets and state-regulated autonomous vehicle companies under pressure to commercialize and prove their technologies work without incident.

San Francisco has served as a testing laboratory for self-driving cars. But officials said it�s been difficult to assess their effectiveness because companies aren�t required to report unplanned stop incidents � some of which have been captured on social media � when they happen.

San Francisco officials want the state to require that companies report incidents when they happen. They also want companies to incrementally increase driverless service and prove that their cars are capable of operating without incident during peak morning and afternoon commute hours, before allowing them to charge for rides in the city�s dense and congested northeast quadrant.

�I wish I knew better and had more confidence because all we do see is some of these anecdotal incidents,� said Tilly Chang, executive director of the County Transportation Authority. �Seeing (the reported incidents) all together on a list or a map, it does give us pause, and we are concerned about the severity of some of them.�

A Waymo spokesperson said the company would submit a response letter to the CPUC this week. Cruise disputed the city�s account of the Jan. 22 incident and said its vehicle had already stopped by the time a firefighter smashed its windows.

Both companies pointed to more than three dozen endorsements from local community groups, disability advocates and businesses supporting their fare service expansions throughout the city.

�Cruise�s safety record is publicly reported and includes having driven millions of miles in an extremely complex urban environment with zero life-threatening injuries or fatalities,� Cruise spokesperson Hannah Lindow told The Chronicle.

The city�s transportation agencies documented several incidents where driverless cars disrupted Muni service. During the night of Sept. 23, five Cruise cars blocked traffic lanes on Mission Street in Bernal Heights, stalling a Muni bus for 45 minutes. On at least three different occasions, Cruise cars stopped on Muni light-rail tracks, halting service.

The agencies described two other incidents where Cruise cars obstructed responses by emergency responders.

David Zipper, a visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School�s Taubman Center for State and Local Government, said the incidents in San Francisco illustrate how self-driving technology is �still very much under development,� even as companies seek to expand their driverless cars to other large U.S. cities, such as Austin, Texas.

�San Francisco is the canary in the coal mine for autonomous vehicles because so many companies are in Silicon Valley and see San Francisco as a high-profile showcase,� Zipper said. �If the technology works and there�s money to continue launching in more cities � which are big caveats � then I would expect to see more cities experiencing the kinds of services that San Francisco is seeing from Cruise, Waymo and a few others.�

* Technically, Cruise doesn't have driverless cars on the streets anymore, because they got their driverless license suspended. Officially, it was suspended for poorly handling a situation with an injured pedestrian on the road, but the real reason for the suspension is almost certainly because the company intentionally concealed information from regulators, cutting off the video they provided before the part where the stopped car started driving again with the pedestrian still trapped underneath and dragged them 20 feet down the road before stopping again.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 01:12

MixMasterMalaria: Jul 26, 2007

Platystemon posted:

We should identify drivers who are worse than today’s autonomous cars and make it illegal for them to drive themselves. Then we should identify the drivers who are better and make it illegal for them to cede the wheel.

What if we could calibrate the ai to exactly match each passengers' safety profile? Or charge them based on the gap in safety between them and self-driving default?

# ? Oct 27, 2023 01:26

Kwyndig: Sep 23, 2006; Heeeeeey

Main Paineframe posted:

But let's move away from the theoretical ideal of potential robot cars, and look at the actual driverless cars and how they're behaving on our streets right now*

* Technically, Cruise doesn't have driverless cars on the streets anymore, because they got their driverless license suspended. Officially, it was suspended for poorly handling a situation with an injured pedestrian on the road, but the real reason for the suspension is almost certainly because the company intentionally concealed information from regulators, cutting off the video they provided before the part where the stopped car started driving again with the pedestrian still trapped underneath and dragged them 20 feet down the road before stopping again.

I'd think that even the implication that driverless cars are dragging pedestrians down the street after running them over would be enough to scuttle the program until they can drat well prove it won't happen again.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 02:08

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Kwyndig posted:

I'd think that even the implication that driverless cars are dragging pedestrians down the street after running them over would be enough to scuttle the program until they can drat well prove it won't happen again.

The running-over part was probably unavoidable - another car hit the pedestrian and knocked them directly into the path of the driverless car, which slammed the brakes but was too close to stop in time. The part that was the driverless car's fault is that after stopping, the car started moving again, driving down the road with the person still trapped underneath as it looked for a good place to pull over.

I feel like if that was all there was to it, they probably would have gotten away with a slap on the wrist as long as they apologized and promised it wouldn't happen again. The problem is that Cruise only told the DMV and the press about the first part, the part that wasn't their fault. The videos they provided cut off right when the car first came to a stop. California regulators only found out about the rest of it a couple weeks later when they heard the full story from a NHTSA investigator, and that got them pissed off.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 02:55

Sagacity: May 2, 2003; Hopefully my epitaph will be funnier than my custom title.

And this kind of lovely behaviour perfectly encapsulates why these companies should not be trusted to sling around robotic death machines on our roads, regardless of what forums poster Electric Wrigglies claims.

Thankfully European car manufacturers are taking things more slowly and doing things like, oh I don't know, rigorous testing on closed roads *where they don't kill people*.

Companies like Cruise and Tesla are shamelessly lying about the capabilities of their cars and the incidents they get into and we're supposed to be happy about it because "humans cause accidents, too"? That doesn't excuse these companies' insanely lovely and reckless behaviour.

Sagacity fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Oct 27, 2023

# ? Oct 27, 2023 06:32

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Main Paineframe posted:

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.

Your post makes it seem like Waymo is just putting its cars on the market for general release instead of being a part of many small and limited test periods and pilot programs that it is. Not much different to clinical trials of medicine prior release into the general use (clinical trials, especially mental medication - also put non-trial people at risk).

Like a clinical trial where a fellow goes weird and kills his workmate, the Waymo program was paused/stopped to look into why it happened etc. That the company was weird about it as you point out is definitely worthy of further scrutiny and sanction by the regulators.

You posted a list of anecdotal incidents that almost certainly have multiple equivalents every day with driver driven cars across the States. It is demonstrating that there is still work to be done to improve driverless cars even further and hence why they are not in general release. I expect they will get better. Bit like how Deep blue struggled to beat Kasparov in 1997 but now it is trivial for computers to beat the words best Chess and even Go players. The list for me mostly looks like punch list work, expected hiccups with commissioning anything new of the scale of what is being attempted.

And finally, the US is not the only place thinking about this. Driverless cars are legal in Shenzhen, China and roll outs through China will continue to advance the state of art as the automation is fine tuned to what is likely a more challenging driving environment. Maybe the US can ban development until it is demonstrated conclusively enough in real China use for all but the covid deniers. What will happen then is the rest of the world will buy Chinese tech and not US tech due to the lack of development of US versions.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 10:39

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Maybe the US can ban development until it is demonstrated conclusively enough in real China use for all but the covid deniers. What will happen then is the rest of the world will buy Chinese tech and not US tech due to the lack of development of US versions.

Ensuring that development of technology is done safely and with minimal risk to human life is not the same thing as banning development. Stop with the bad-faith false equivalencies.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 10:51

Mega Comrade: Apr 22, 2004; Listen buddy, we all got problems!

Maybe I'm wrong but when pharmaceuticals want to test experimental drugs on me they have to ask express permission. Which is not the case for driverless cars, so I don't think the comparison is very valuable.

Electric Wrigglies posted:

What will happen then is the rest of the world will buy Chinese tech and not US tech due to the lack of development of US versions.

This is the level of argument I expect on fox news.

Oh no heavens, not China!!

# ? Oct 27, 2023 10:53

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Dirk the Average posted:

Ensuring that development of technology is done safely and with minimal risk to human life is not the same thing as banning development. Stop with the bad-faith false equivalencies.

Driverless cars for the most part have gotten as good as they are going to get without real world testing. Banning real world testing while China rolls out Autonomous Driving network (alongside its monster public rail network) absolutely without a shadow of a doubt is equivalent to banning development from keeping up with Chinese development.

E)

Mega Comrade posted:

Maybe I'm wrong but when pharmaceuticals want to test experimental drugs on me they have to ask express permission. Which is not the case for driverless cars, so I don't think the comparison is very valuable.

This is the level of argument I expect on fox news.

Oh no heavens, not China!!

It may surprise you to know that people on clinical trials are not always banned from going out in public or from operating vehicles. People sometimes have really bad reactions to medications that result in others losing their life.

Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Oct 27, 2023

# ? Oct 27, 2023 10:54

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Driverless cars for the most part have gotten as good as they are going to get without real world testing. Banning real world testing while China rolls out Autonomous Driving network (alongside its monster public rail network) absolutely without a shadow of a doubt is equivalent to banning development from keeping up with Chinese development.

Bullshit.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 11:08

SerthVarnee: Mar 13, 2011; It has been ~~two~~ zero days since last incident.; Big Super Slapstick Hunk

Electric Wrigglies posted:

It may surprise you to know that people on clinical trials are not always banned from going out in public or from operating vehicles. People sometimes have really bad reactions to medications that result in others losing their life.

What the gently caress are you on about? Experimental medical testing is not in any single way comparable to experimental testing of sending multi-ton steel objects driving through regular traffic.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 11:33

Kwyndig: Sep 23, 2006; Heeeeeey

And when has a medical reaction killed somebody else. I want sources for this ludicruous claim.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 11:39

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Electric Wrigglies posted:

(clinical trials, especially mental medication - also put non-trial people at risk).

Like a clinical trial where a fellow goes weird and kills his workmate,

You�ve been watching too much Serenity or Gen V or too many D.A.R.E. presentations.

That�s not how mental illness works, and it�s not how treatment for mental illness works.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 12:00

HopperUK: Apr 29, 2007; Why would an ambulance be leaving the hospital?

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Your post makes it seem like Waymo is just putting its cars on the market for general release instead of being a part of many small and limited test periods and pilot programs that it is. Not much different to clinical trials of medicine prior release into the general use (clinical trials, especially mental medication - also put non-trial people at risk).

Like a clinical trial where a fellow goes weird and kills his workmate, the Waymo program was paused/stopped to look into why it happened etc. That the company was weird about it as you point out is definitely worthy of further scrutiny and sanction by the regulators.

You posted a list of anecdotal incidents that almost certainly have multiple equivalents every day with driver driven cars across the States. It is demonstrating that there is still work to be done to improve driverless cars even further and hence why they are not in general release. I expect they will get better. Bit like how Deep blue struggled to beat Kasparov in 1997 but now it is trivial for computers to beat the words best Chess and even Go players. The list for me mostly looks like punch list work, expected hiccups with commissioning anything new of the scale of what is being attempted.

And finally, the US is not the only place thinking about this. Driverless cars are legal in Shenzhen, China and roll outs through China will continue to advance the state of art as the automation is fine tuned to what is likely a more challenging driving environment. Maybe the US can ban development until it is demonstrated conclusively enough in real China use for all but the covid deniers. What will happen then is the rest of the world will buy Chinese tech and not US tech due to the lack of development of US versions.

Mental medication?!

e: Sorry - that was flippant. But I would like to see examples.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 12:40

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Preventable medical mistakes was killing, in the late 90's, in excess of 44k of Americans each year, leading vehicle accidents (~40k) as the number one cause of preventable deaths and you lot are completely convinced that never in the US has someone that is on a clinical trial ever (for example) made a mistake driving a vehicle or some other action (handling firearms, workplace equipment, completing medical procedures, etc) leading to the death of another person.

To quote my esteemed poster;

Dirk the Average posted:

Bullshit.

Adverse unintended outcomes of clinical trials is routine. So much so that there is a body of study work dedicated to if and how to appropriately compensate such outcomes. Sometimes these outcomes are serious and sometimes even leading to the death of participants, their unborn children and (quite infrequently), others. That some people might die in the quest for better medication and procedures is the price of doing business that the public tolerates (even as we all expect improvement over time).

That there is a lack the imagination to consider that amongst the 10's of thousands of preventable deaths worldwide that there would be weird edge cases (such as someone on a clinical trial falling asleep at the wheel of a car due to medication caused drowsiness) is probably why there is demand for unprovable perfection prior to an AD trial (how to prove AD cars will be satisfactorily safe without going onto a public road? You can't, so therefore it can never be considered safe enough to trial).

Incidentally, this demand for perfection is also why US pilots are automatically (at least temporarily) banned from flying if they declare or admit to a mental condition or depression (leading to pilots self-diagnosing and self-treating depression amongst other outcomes). Even if it is perfectly treatable and the pilot is managing that illness, their career is hosed through the abundance of caution that prefers pilots self-treating for depression rather than flying while observing professional treatment.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 13:27

SerthVarnee: Mar 13, 2011; It has been ~~two~~ zero days since last incident.; Big Super Slapstick Hunk

Edit: Actually you know what? Let's drop the medical comparison. It is quite clear that we aren't going to agree on that comparison and we'll just end up shouting past each other forever.

Let's go with the comparison to airline automatic pilot implementation.

Those implementations have certainly made life a lot easier for pilots, but they've also led to a noticeable skill decay due to lack of constant muscle memory training.

It has also led to a reaction time issue as the pilots have to deal with both the sudden issue and get themselves into the groove of controlling the airplane fully.

I'm sure the driverless car will eventually be able to keep the engine running and the wheels turning in the right direction during normal operations, but that will also lead to a general skill decay in the people ostensibly in control of the vehicle in case an emergency props up or the driverless function fails for whatever reason. Having to react to an incident near the road will potentially require the driver to know how to handle their car off road or during awkward angles of towing a vehicle, pushing objects away from pedestrians, placing the car between an enraged animal and a person, getting out of a flooding situation before the water rises too high, avoiding falling rocks that are still too high enough up for the car to register.

In the end, not all cars will be useful as driverless vehicles, since the operator will be using the car as part of their job.

SerthVarnee fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Oct 27, 2023

# ? Oct 27, 2023 13:36

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Electric Wrigglies posted:

To quote my esteemed poster;

Again, the "Bullshit." I stated referred to:

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Driverless cars for the most part have gotten as good as they are going to get without real world testing. Banning real world testing while China rolls out Autonomous Driving network (alongside its monster public rail network) absolutely without a shadow of a doubt is equivalent to banning development from keeping up with Chinese development.

Which is, frankly, bullshit. It's even worse when you continue to put words in my mouth by saying that I am advocating for "banning real world testing." Regulation is not a ban.

As much as I don't want to lead into a "China bad" thing, my anecdotal experience in the medical industry has been that there is a certain lack of care about safety in a lot of their testing (multiple experiences across multiple companies). Bribing the official that is there specifically to stop bribes is a thing, and you can fast track therapies that really aren't at the point where they should be deployed on patients. Citing China as a case study in how we should be approaching research that has a cost in human lives is not ideal, to say the least, according to my limited experience.

You have done a poor job of convincing me (and others) that we need to just allow companies to throw AD vehicles on the road. Pilot studies and going through proper regulatory channels are things that should absolutely be required for companies that plan to do this. I am also unconvinced that real world testing is required for progress at this point - while that may be true for the most cutting edge programs, it is certainly not true across the entire industry. And those programs that are at the point where they can be unleashed upon the public should be doing so with extreme caution that follows a strict protocol. We are certainly not at the point where these vehicles should be available for commercial use, either (as evidenced by Cruise is recent months).

# ? Oct 27, 2023 14:04

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Your post makes it seem like Waymo is just putting its cars on the market for general release instead of being a part of many small and limited test periods and pilot programs that it is. Not much different to clinical trials of medicine prior release into the general use (clinical trials, especially mental medication - also put non-trial people at risk).

Like a clinical trial where a fellow goes weird and kills his workmate, the Waymo program was paused/stopped to look into why it happened etc. That the company was weird about it as you point out is definitely worthy of further scrutiny and sanction by the regulators.

You posted a list of anecdotal incidents that almost certainly have multiple equivalents every day with driver driven cars across the States. It is demonstrating that there is still work to be done to improve driverless cars even further and hence why they are not in general release. I expect they will get better. Bit like how Deep blue struggled to beat Kasparov in 1997 but now it is trivial for computers to beat the words best Chess and even Go players. The list for me mostly looks like punch list work, expected hiccups with commissioning anything new of the scale of what is being attempted.

And finally, the US is not the only place thinking about this. Driverless cars are legal in Shenzhen, China and roll outs through China will continue to advance the state of art as the automation is fine tuned to what is likely a more challenging driving environment. Maybe the US can ban development until it is demonstrated conclusively enough in real China use for all but the covid deniers. What will happen then is the rest of the world will buy Chinese tech and not US tech due to the lack of development of US versions.

First off, it wasn't Waymo, it was Cruise. Second, the program wasn't stopped when a needless injury happened - it was only stopped when regulators found out that the company had actively attempted to deceive them, which I don't believe is a normal feature of clinical trials.

I don't know why you keep talking about "general release". I thought my stance, and the stance of the article, was fairly clear: that these cars are not ready to be on public roads. Yes, I'm sure they'll get better over time. But they should be withdrawn from public roads until they're at least better enough to stop slamming into emergency vehicles all the time. And they certainly shouldn't be taking passengers.

I don't believe we should be striving to emulate the Chinese government's safety practices. It's not a government that's exactly known for its strict safety regulation of unscrupulous companies. Nobody is talking about banning development, they're talking about stopping public alpha tests on public roads.

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Driverless cars for the most part have gotten as good as they are going to get without real world testing. Banning real world testing while China rolls out Autonomous Driving network (alongside its monster public rail network) absolutely without a shadow of a doubt is equivalent to banning development from keeping up with Chinese development.
.

There is absolutely no way that's true. It is definitely possible to improve them further without having them on public roads. Having them on public roads may speed up development by making all the developers' mistakes and bad assumptions very obvious, but that's hardly worth the risk to public safety.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that these companies are putting these cars on the street before they're really ready to do so, not for technical reasons but rather for business reasons. With a bunch of companies all competing to be the first ones to break into a totally new market for totally new technology, there's a strong incentive to rush things.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 14:21

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Oxyclean posted:

But "every car is driverless" is as unlikely of a scenario as America embracing public transit and less car dependent cities.

That's the joke. The only way is going to happen is over forty years, as insurance companies lobby to only have insurance count when the AI does the driving.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 16:27

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Main Paineframe posted:

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that these companies are putting these cars on the street before they're really ready to do so, not for technical reasons but rather for business reasons. With a bunch of companies all competing to be the first ones to break into a totally new market for totally new technology, there's a strong incentive to rush things.

This is exactly why the vehicles are going on the road ASAP and tech companies keep ~~bribing~~ lobbying politicians as hard as they do. Uber continues to set billions of VC funding on fire and its value is tied entirely to the goal of replacing the Taxi industry with self-driving vehicles.

Mister Facetious posted:

That's the joke. The only way is going to happen is over forty years, as insurance companies lobby to only have insurance count when the AI does the driving.

While also requiring the AI to immediately give control to the human in the car right before impact so they can deny claims.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 16:32

Blut: Sep 11, 2009; if someone is in the bottom 10%~ of a guillotine

Platystemon posted:

We should identify drivers who are worse than today�s autonomous cars and make it illegal for them to drive themselves. Then we should identify the drivers who are better and make it illegal for them to cede the wheel.

This would unironically actually be a great place to start. We already have actuarial tables for car insurance that predict, accurately, whos likely to be a safe driver and who isn't. As things currently stand though being an unsafe driver just means a higher car insurance price premium - which means its just a measure against poor people. Rich assholes who drive horribly and get in lots of accidents can just pay their way out of it.

If in a few years we could restrict everyone in say the highest 10%-20% of risk profile to AI cars it'd make a huge difference to road deaths.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 16:45

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Mandatory breathalyzers in all cars too, since AI is probably already safer than drunks

# ? Oct 27, 2023 16:46

Oxyclean: Sep 23, 2007

Mister Facetious posted:

That's the joke. The only way is going to happen is over forty years, as insurance companies lobby to only have insurance count when the AI does the driving.

Which is funny because it sounds like AI cars already have a habit of going "~~Jesus~~ human take the wheel!" the second something goes particularly wrong so the companies can go "see, the AI wasn't at fault"

# ? Oct 27, 2023 16:48

Jose Valasquez: Apr 8, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

This is exactly why the vehicles are going on the road ASAP and tech companies keep ~~bribing~~ lobbying politicians as hard as they do. Uber continues to set billions of VC funding on fire and its value is tied entirely to the goal of replacing the Taxi industry with self-driving vehicles.

Uber sold their self driving stuff to a different company 3 years ago and is on track to potentially have their first profitable year ever

# ? Oct 27, 2023 17:03

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

The real issues are not with the drivers in the US. Contrary to popular belief, Americans aren't any dumber than anyone else, and focusing on the driver as the root cause of an accident ignores the massive systemic failures that actually cause our high level of road fatalaties.

Off the top of my head:

Cars in the US are massive (and thus deadly) compared to a lot of other countries. This is largely on car manufacturers, and on the government for refusing to close the light truck loophole that makes it incredibly profitable for car manufacturers to sell everything as an SUV.
Our road design encourages speeding (lots of wide straight roads and wide lanes), and mixes this with pedestrian crossings and unprotected bike lanes.
We have an utter lack of public transit means that we are hesitant to take away licenses from people who are legitimately bad drivers, and there are a lot of people on the road who would rather not be driving!

Safe autonomous cars can help with these issues, but not as much as actual public transit. And, autonomous cars don't help with the other harms from cars, such as

pollution from exhaust
pollution from brakes and tires
pollution from noise (this is actually a much bigger health issue than people give credit to)
pollution from light (this is also a bigger issue than people realize)
poor use of space (autonomous cars can move or reduce the storage space required for cars, but roads are still massively inefficient in space usage)
probably a hundred other issues that I haven't thought of here

Autonomous cars are maybe a degree of harm reduction for cars, but ultimately, we need to move primarily to other forms of transit for most people, and we need to do so as soon as we can.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 17:22

nachos: Jun 27, 2004; Wario Chalmers! WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

If cars go full AI then it'd be incredibly cheap for people and businesses to deploy them and use them for all sorts of utility purposes. That would certainly lead to safer roads if the AI is just driving in bumper to bumper traffic all day.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 17:33

Vegetable: Oct 22, 2010

VikingofRock posted:

The real issues are not with the drivers in the US. Contrary to popular belief, Americans aren't any dumber than anyone else, and focusing on the driver as the root cause of an accident ignores the massive systemic failures that actually cause our high level of road fatalaties.

Off the top of my head:

Cars in the US are massive (and thus deadly) compared to a lot of other countries. This is largely on car manufacturers, and on the government for refusing to close the light truck loophole that makes it incredibly profitable for car manufacturers to sell everything as an SUV.

Our road design encourages speeding (lots of wide straight roads and wide lanes), and mixes this with pedestrian crossings and unprotected bike lanes.

We have an utter lack of public transit means that we are hesitant to take away licenses from people who are legitimately bad drivers, and there are a lot of people on the road who would rather not be driving!

Safe autonomous cars can help with these issues, but not as much as actual public transit. And, autonomous cars don't help with the other harms from cars, such as

pollution from exhaust

pollution from brakes and tires

pollution from noise (this is actually a much bigger health issue than people give credit to)

pollution from light (this is also a bigger issue than people realize)

poor use of space (autonomous cars can move or reduce the storage space required for cars, but roads are still massively inefficient in space usage)

probably a hundred other issues that I haven't thought of here

Autonomous cars are maybe a degree of harm reduction for cars, but ultimately, we need to move primarily to other forms of transit for most people, and we need to do so as soon as we can.

American drivers are dumber, in the sense that Driver Ed is trash. In most developed countries the training is conducted by licensed professionals not your mom and dad, and the test requires more than just taking the car around the block. There are complex reasons why the bar is set so low, but it�s undoubtedly a big reason why its drivers are so awful.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 17:35

Twerk from Home: Jan 17, 2009; This avatar brought to you by the 'save our dead gay forums' foundation.

VikingofRock posted:

pollution from exhaust

pollution from brakes and tires

pollution from noise (this is actually a much bigger health issue than people give credit to)

pollution from light (this is also a bigger issue than people realize)

poor use of space (autonomous cars can move or reduce the storage space required for cars, but roads are still massively inefficient in space usage)

probably a hundred other issues that I haven't thought of here

Autonomous cars are maybe a degree of harm reduction for cars, but ultimately, we need to move primarily to other forms of transit for most people, and we need to do so as soon as we can.

Assuming that eventually cars achieve legal self driving on city streets, which is a huge if, we're going to have to face that it's cheaper for an EV to just drive around the block at low speed for hours than pay for parking.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 17:41

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Vegetable posted:

American drivers are dumber, in the sense that Driver Ed is trash. In most developed countries the training is conducted by licensed professionals not your mom and dad, and the test requires more than just taking the car around the block. There are complex reasons why the bar is set so low, but it�s undoubtedly a big reason why its drivers are so awful.

This does very from state to state at least. I recall a fellow from Germany who spoke about how the licensing requirements in various states related to what he had, and how some states had basically worthless licenses while others were good enough to transfer over easily.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 17:53

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

VikingofRock posted:

We have an utter lack of public transit means that we are hesitant to take away licenses from people who are legitimately bad drivers, and there are a lot of people on the road who would rather not be driving!

This is a very, very important point. The AARP lobbies ferociously whenever a state requires regular driving exams over age 70, or does anything else that restricts Grandma's ability to drive. And lots of families are torn about taking away Grandma's keys not only because she'll dislike it, but because without a car she is trapped in her home. My family did manage to take the keys away by hiding the car after a hospitalization. I did a lot of searching to see if I could find any alternative for her, but there's no Uber in her town, and the bus service is drat near nonexistent.

And then there are drunk drivers who still get restricted driving licenses because otherwise they can't hold a job and support themselves.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 18:41

Blut: Sep 11, 2009; if someone is in the bottom 10%~ of a guillotine

VikingofRock posted:

The real issues are not with the drivers in the US. Contrary to popular belief, Americans aren't any dumber than anyone else, and focusing on the driver as the root cause of an accident ignores the massive systemic failures that actually cause our high level of road fatalaties.

Off the top of my head:

Cars in the US are massive (and thus deadly) compared to a lot of other countries. This is largely on car manufacturers, and on the government for refusing to close the light truck loophole that makes it incredibly profitable for car manufacturers to sell everything as an SUV.

Our road design encourages speeding (lots of wide straight roads and wide lanes), and mixes this with pedestrian crossings and unprotected bike lanes.

We have an utter lack of public transit means that we are hesitant to take away licenses from people who are legitimately bad drivers, and there are a lot of people on the road who would rather not be driving!

The US in 2022 had 8.3 deaths per 1 million passenger km driven. In Australia, a country thats known for having both large cars and similar road design the figure is 5.2. In Canada, ditto, its 5.1. Thats a huge difference. Public transport doesn't impact this figure.

In European countries its even better - 3.0 in Norway, 3.8 in Ireland, 3.8 in the UK etc.

Driving tests in the US are notoriously easy, and driver quality low as a result - theres a reason very few countries will exchange US licenses for a local one. This is a typical first world country's list of states recognised as having valid driver education/skill levels to justify a license swap:

quote:

An EU or EEA country
Australia
Canada (but not from all provinces � see note below)
Japan
Hong Kong
South Africa
Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Singapore
Switzerland
New Zealand
Taiwan
UK

Note: You can exchange a Canadian licence that was issued by the following provinces:

Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan

# ? Oct 27, 2023 20:22

Steve French: Sep 8, 2003

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Driverless cars for the most part have gotten as good as they are going to get without real world testing. Banning real world testing while China rolls out Autonomous Driving network (alongside its monster public rail network) absolutely without a shadow of a doubt is equivalent to banning development from keeping up with Chinese development.

Name a single reason why this real world testing must be done with:
1. human non-employee passengers
2. no human employee present, so that they can take over just on the off chance that, oh, I dunno, the AI drives over someone and then continues moving forward.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 20:35

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Speaking of real world testing, Cruise just 'paused' taxi services in all markets.

Waiting to hear that this is no true AI.

# ? Oct 27, 2023 21:04

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Steve French posted:

Name a single reason why this real world testing must be done with:
1. human non-employee passengers
2. no human employee present, so that they can take over just on the off chance that, oh, I dunno, the AI drives over someone and then continues moving forward.

The only reason is if you�re running out of money and need to use the cars to generate revenue.

This piece does a great job explaining why Cruise made such a reckless decision: https://apperceptive.substack.com/p/i-knew-this-was-coming

# ? Oct 28, 2023 00:58

SpeakSlow: May 17, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Rhetorical Funhouse, this Tech Nightmares thread has become.

# ? Oct 28, 2023 16:06

Lyesh: Apr 9, 2003

Vegetable posted:

The study compared human-driven cars in SF/Phoenix to Waymo cars. It�s like for like. SF is probably one of the hardest cities to drive in in America. That may not be enough for you, but it�s enough for me and frankly it just confirms what safety experts have been assuming for the longest time. You can wait for a nationwide launch before you make your mind up though

oh come on SF doesn't even have snow and has significantly less rain than many other US cities.

# ? Oct 29, 2023 22:52

Deuce: Jun 18, 2004; Mile High Club

Lyesh posted:

oh come on SF doesn't even have snow and has significantly less rain than many other US cities.

I wanna see Waymo handle Duluth in the winter.

# ? Oct 30, 2023 15:35

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Deuce posted:

I wanna see Waymo handle Duluth in the winter.

Thinking back to the time in Pittsburgh when cold damp winds put a thin layer of ice on Carson street in about an hour or so and there is no loving way an AI is going to be able to handle that without ending up slamming into a building or careening out onto the train tracks (or overshooting those and ending up in the trees if not the river itself).

I guess it's not like the AI will have any worse visibility in whiteout conditions on 79 or 90 than a person does. Maybe.

Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Oct 30, 2023

# ? Oct 30, 2023 18:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 17:30

Jose Valasquez: Apr 8, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

Thinking back to the time in Pittsburgh when cold damp winds put a thin layer of ice on Carson street in about an hour or so and there is no loving way an AI is going to be able to handle that without ending up slamming into a building or careening out onto the train tracks (or overshooting those and ending up in the trees if not the river itself).

An AI trained extensively on those conditions would probably do better than the average human driver in those conditions.

# ? Oct 30, 2023 18:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

«‹›1517 »