• Google Cars 1 million miles with 0 accidents upsets media.
    112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisguy123;47742709]As much as I like this new technology stuff I'm not sure I like the idea of driverless cars... at least, not cars with 0 human input. Having passed my driving test I can tell you a I barely trust myself with one of the more lethal things mankind has created. Personally I'd want regulations on driverless cars, in that every one of those things must have an aware and uninhibited human operator with a license for the driverless vehicle in question at the controls at all times in case of emergencies. Now you might think that this kinda defeats the point of a driverless car but at the same time this is how most large commercial aircraft work, as we know once a plane is in the air an autopilot can do pretty much all of the work and the pilot can fuck off until it's time to land, and heck with some more recent planes and airports with the positioning infrastructure to support it planes can take off and land themselves. So I pose the question, if you like the idea of driverless cars do you also like the idea of a fully pilotless plane? Like, not attempting to be snarky or pull a [I]"HAH if you answer X for one you MUST answer X for the other"[/I] logical bullshit, this is a genuine question? If you don't like one but why the other it'd be interesting to know why and what makes you think one should be allowed and the other not?[/QUOTE] Well, 1. I get that you can't trust yourself, you don't have enough experience. A computer doesn't need experience, and its track record so far says its AI is good enough at handling a situation. And I feel less safe with a fully pilotless plane because instead of a small, smart car like vehicle with one or two passengers, there's an incredible mass of steel, with hundreds of people traveling at 600 mph as opposed to around 60. There's a lot more at stake, and a failure could cause a lot more destruction and a lot more lives than getting blindsided in an intersection.
Driverless trucks?! But... Muh jobs?? :( [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Memeshit" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Kazumi;47742083]Humans aren't flawless either you know. In fact, there are probably many more things that can disrupt our driving than a machine's.[/QUOTE] Yea like how 50% of people are on their damned cell phones when driving.
[QUOTE=smidge146;47741886][QUOTE=ridinmybike;47741865]this is just the beginning, next the google cars will take our jobs[/QUOTE] And it will probably bring on a lot more jobs.[/QUOTE] Kind of a libertarian fantasy ideal that any time the free market disposes of a large number of jobs, a similar amount will open up somewhere.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47741919]Probably 0 due to human reaction time is usually around 1/4 second, compare to a computers reaction time in the milli or micro seconds.[/QUOTE] It's possible for false-positive events in cars. They [I]are not[/I] flawless, especially if they are not well programmed. [I]Road and Track[/I] editors experienced numerous events with the automatic braking system in various cars that nearly caused accidents on their own because of false positive errors. The computer can react faster, but it can react in a way that is stupid and outright dangerous. What computers excel at are fast responses and dealing with things a fleshy meatbag cannot, such as constantly monitoring 360 degrees around car, as the Mercedes in the article below does, avoiding a crash when a car behind it misses a turn in the road and starts heading for the Merc. [url]http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a8976/hal-is-my-co-pilot-autonomous-driving-column/[/url]
[QUOTE=OvB;47742576]Grasping at straws. You realize we have robots in cars [i]now[/i] that are stopping human error? The proper question is the exact opposite. How many accidents are robots stopping now by taking over in a milliseconds notice because the human was accelerating too fast in traffic. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] The transportation industry is one of the biggest employeers in the world. Self driving cars are going to disrupt everything we know.[/QUOTE] there will always be plenty of people that will hold off on trusting new technology, it's really a problem that solves itself eventually jobs become obsolete, it's how we advance, and while it sucks it is what it is
[QUOTE=Sniping Robot;47742095]This is also how economies transform. When less people have to do menial tasks like driving people or goods around, there will be more people/labour to do activities that are more beneficial/productive. Until eventually computers have replaced pretty much everyone's jobs. Then, it would be time to look into a universal basic income imo. Edit: also I'm loving how the titles of those news articles imply that these driver less cars are dangerous. Just reminds me how there will be resistance to any society-wide change.[/QUOTE] A universal minimum income would help in today's society too. I can't remember what the study was called, but Canada tried out minimum income in a town, and the only groups that ended up not working as often were teenagers and stay at home parents.
[QUOTE=momoiro;47741936]I don't think so, the transport industry is huge. When automated driving can replace truck drivers and such we'll find ourselves with a massive amount of people without jobs. While google cars might create jobs, more will most probably disappear.[/QUOTE] Things like this haven happened so many times throughout history that i have a hard time concerning myself about this. What happened to all the people who worked in farming, who worked in industry? they found a different job.
From a technological standpoint, this is incredible, but from an economic standpoint, this will most likely end in a shit ton of jobs lost. Automation will kill jobs faster than anything we've seen before
[QUOTE]Self-driving cars can’t avoid accidents on California Roads[/QUOTE] [I]The computer is perfect, it is the roads that are faulty I tell ye![/I] [QUOTE=momoiro;47741936]I don't think so, the transport industry is huge. When automated driving can replace truck drivers and such we'll find ourselves with a massive amount of people without jobs. While google cars might create jobs, more will most probably disappear.[/QUOTE] Truck and taxi drivers are a bunch of slimy unionized mafiosos down here so I might be biased but: can't wait for that to happen
[QUOTE=momoiro;47741936]I don't think so, the transport industry is huge. When automated driving can replace truck drivers and such we'll find ourselves with a massive amount of people without jobs. While google cars might create jobs, more will most probably disappear.[/QUOTE] That probably won't be for a while though.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;47743522][I]The computer is perfect, it is the roads that are faulty I tell ye![/I] Truck and taxi drivers are a bunch of slimy unionized mafiosos down here so I might be biased but: can't wait for that to happen[/QUOTE] Also people who can't get a job or are the backbone of American industry who don't have much other skills.
Honestly I dont expect much less from the american media. The media is going to interpret things however they want and a lot of the time the people who make the articles either did not read the original documents properly or the article is pretty opinionated.
Consider that this scenario is easily possible with current technology: You dictate to your phone a shopping list, the phone places an order for a local store, where a storage robot fetches your stuff to a self-driving car and the car then delivers it to your door. This is the future.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;47743709]Consider that this scenario is easily possible with current technology: You dictate to your phone a shopping list, the phone places an order for a local store, where a storage robot fetches your stuff to a self-driving car and the car then delivers it to your door. This is the future.[/QUOTE] and the future has few human jobs, unfortunately
Humans don't [i]need[/i] to do jobs that robots can do. And robots do not do work that benefits no-one - whyever would we make such robots? Humans do not lose just because robots are doing more work.
The thing is that even if google doesn't intend to kill off jobs in transportation with this that's inevitably what will happen if the right conditions arise. People who ride the bus probably do so to save money since owning and maintaining a car over the months is more expensive. So it doesn't make sense that people would stop using public transport just because the option of automated cars exists. But this is assuming that the bus drivers will continue to be human, which they probably won't be and here's why: Given the choice between having to pay a worker to drive a bus or taxi around or having a computer that doesn't demand a monthly payment, any company will go for the computer. Combined with the fact that there's [B]no better task[/B] for an automated transport, following a pre-defined, routine path at low speeds with stops along the way with no judgement required whatsoever. If I were in charge of the company it'd just the logical, most profitable thing to do.
We're getting damn close to the time when we have to start implementing a standard living wage
[QUOTE=Bathtub;47743722]and the future has few human jobs, unfortunately[/QUOTE] I bet a lot of people with scythes were really angry when the combine harvester came along, and that the fifty workers needed to build a model T were mad when they were replaced by a couple robot arms and their respective technicians, but it's all worked out so far, hasn't it?
[QUOTE=latin_geek;47743869]I bet a lot of people with scythes were really angry when the combine harvester came along, and that the fifty workers needed to build a model T were mad when they were replaced by a couple robot arms and their respective technicians, but it's all worked out so far, hasn't it?[/QUOTE] So far, but the past is drastically different from the future. Somewhere in the next 200 years as more and more jobs are replaced by machines that don't complain and don't demand wages, there will need to be a minimum income that you recieve purely for being alive. There's just not gonna be enough jobs for everyone. There will [I]always[/I] be jobs that a machine can't do, even in the transport domain, but that's only so many jobs for billions upon billions of people. And do you realize what a drastic change that is? We barely have our shit together as it is.
[QUOTE=Bathtub;47743722]and the future has few human jobs, unfortunately[/QUOTE] That's really not that unfortunate. The ultimate goal for automation is for humans to never need to do menial tasks; freeing up time to learn, create, and actually experience life outside of their shitty job. And to save money, mostly the saving money. It will require an competent government to ensure that the people not working can actually survive, but that is what we should strive for. Not ensuring these shitty, underpaying jobs exist just to keep people in work for "reasons". The cool thing I find with these automated cars are they are a great example of a massively distributed pervasive network. Each car is more than capable of navigating a dumb route; no other cars and no communication with the surrounding environment past the radar and photography it uses. However as more things with automation start appearing they can form networks, dropping in and out as needed to massively improve the effectiveness of the automation. Information from one car miles along a motorway about a collision could be transmitted through other vehicles and connected entities to warn cars that can't even see if about the accident, allowing them to route around it. All of this taking seconds at most. It's basically an extension of the Internet Of Things; traffic lights, roadworks indicators, other vehicles, etc. all processing and communicating with each other to work as effectively as possible.
[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;47742400]So the truck drivers' who they stop paying shouldn't be upset?[/QUOTE] They'll be retired by then.
[QUOTE=Bathtub;47743722]and the future has few human jobs, unfortunately[/QUOTE]Ideally in such a future having a job wouldn't be entirely necessary to live if robots are doing almost all the jobs, but somehow I doubt it'll play out that way.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;47744267]Ideally in such a future having a job wouldn't be entirely necessary to live if robots are doing almost all the jobs, but somehow I doubt it'll play out that way.[/QUOTE] What is the alternative? A large portion (a majority, even) of the population is unemployed, homeless and starving to death? Somehow I don't believe it'll turn out that way either.
[QUOTE=Bathtub;47743482]From a technological standpoint, this is incredible, but from an economic standpoint, this will most likely end in a shit ton of jobs lost. Automation will kill jobs faster than anything we've seen before[/QUOTE] Automation has been killing jobs over the course of last two centuries, and before automation, it was manufacture. There has to be social changes but these have to happen independently anyway, because the current economical system is unsustainable regardless. Autonomous cars won't bring the economy down.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47744423]Automation has been killing jobs over the course of last two centuries, and before automation, it was manufacture. There has to be social changes but these have to happen independently anyway, because the current economical system is unsustainable regardless. Autonomous cars won't bring the economy down.[/QUOTE] If it becomes more widespread, why won't it? Delivery (like trucks and taxi drivers) is a bigger market than you think it is, and if automated drivers become the norm most of those people will be out of a job. In the beginning, widespread manufacturing created lots of jobs, but over time it became more synonymous with automation with more advanced factory equipment and computers. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;47743924]That's really not that unfortunate. The ultimate goal for automation is for humans to never need to do menial tasks; freeing up time to learn, create, and actually experience life outside of their shitty job. And to save money, mostly the saving money. It will require an competent government to ensure that the people not working can actually survive, but that is what we should strive for. Not ensuring these shitty, underpaying jobs exist just to keep people in work for "reasons". The cool thing I find with these automated cars are they are a great example of a massively distributed pervasive network. Each car is more than capable of navigating a dumb route; no other cars and no communication with the surrounding environment past the radar and photography it uses. However as more things with automation start appearing they can form networks, dropping in and out as needed to massively improve the effectiveness of the automation. Information from one car miles along a motorway about a collision could be transmitted through other vehicles and connected entities to warn cars that can't even see if about the accident, allowing them to route around it. All of this taking seconds at most. It's basically an extension of the Internet Of Things; traffic lights, roadworks indicators, other vehicles, etc. all processing and communicating with each other to work as effectively as possible.[/QUOTE] I mean yeah, it would be wonderful if robots replaced all menial taxes to improve human lives, but a large amount of people are living off of those menial tasks. Capitalism doesn't mesh well with automation.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;47743768]Humans don't [i]need[/i] to do jobs that robots can do. And robots do not do work that benefits no-one - whyever would we make such robots? Humans do not lose just because robots are doing more work.[/QUOTE] Humans would need basic universal income by that point, and considering our current attitudes on the matter, where we believe people should starve under a bridge if they don't have a job, things could get pretty grim.
[QUOTE=Bathtub;47744457]If it becomes more widespread, why won't it? Delivery (like trucks and taxi drivers) is a bigger market than you think it is, and if automated drivers become the norm most of those people will be out of a job. In the beginning, widespread manufacturing created lots of jobs, but over time it became more synonymous with automation with more advanced factory equipment and computers. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] I mean yeah, it would be wonderful if robots replaced all menial taxes to improve human lives, but a large amount of people are living off of those menial tasks. Capitalism doesn't mesh well with automation.[/QUOTE] Do you know how many jobs have been lost to pneumatic hammer, to welding robots, and to fucking trains? Over the course of history, there has been more professions that stopped existing than there has even been commonly employed in any time in history. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bathtub;47744457] I mean yeah, it would be wonderful if robots replaced all menial taxes to improve human lives, but a large amount of people are living off of those menial tasks. Capitalism doesn't mesh well with automation.[/QUOTE] Oh come on, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite]read the fuck up[/url]. Unnecessary menial tasks are being moved onto machine work for literally centuries. It's not really the actual problem with this world, and it never will be.
The problem I have with "a manual override" is that I think that'd be a worse idea. Some idiot taking over in the middle of traffic because he doesn't understand what his car is doing seems like a recipe for disaster.
[QUOTE=Levelog;47744671]The problem I have with "a manual override" is that I think that'd be a worse idea. Some idiot taking over in the middle of traffic because he doesn't understand what his car is doing seems like a recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstand how crude a car with that sort of technology would be. Imagine a new Mercedes with all the fancy assists. It's the same thing. It's like an Airbus. It allows you to control it but it stops you doing dangerous shit. And that, really, is the future. Cars that forcefully back off if you tailgate someone and account for the average human reaction time. Cars that don't let you change lanes without first indicating. Cars that bump you back into your lane if you try to merge when there's a car there. Cars connected to a network, that know if there's a traffic jam right behind that blind corner even if your hurried self neglects that probability. It wouldn't be a car from the 80's with an "auto mode".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.