• Google Cars 1 million miles with 0 accidents upsets media.
    112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47744727]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".[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the auto cars being discussed in this article IS "auto mode" considering the only reason they even have driving controls is because they legally have to at this time.
Fucking taxis over here in San Jose, costed me 40 bucks to go about 10 minutes of driving to my school when my car died.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47744588]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] And either that attitude will change or automation won't happen at all. But since automation has happened before and is happening currently, the attitude will change. There will never be a situation where a significant portion of the population cannot be supported because robots took their jobs. What are the robots doing if not supporting those people? I'd guess one necessary and early change is that you'll get paid while you're in education, rather than the other way around - though that already happens in Europe to some extent.
[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] the entire economical system would need to be changed once machines start taking over tasks humans did, wouldn't it seem? the current concept of income doesn't make sense, then. [url=http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/half-life/images/9/9e/Dispenser.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20081220192034&path-prefix=en]also this[/url], seems obligatory enough for the thread [editline]edit[/editline] wrong image
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47744598]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] 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.[/QUOTE] No need to be a dick, I'm talking less about small stuff like that and stuff more like this. [video=youtube;7Pq-S557XQU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/video] I don't expect this to happen for a pretty long while, but its still a big potential problem.
[QUOTE=Levelog;47744765]I'm pretty sure the auto cars being discussed in this article IS "auto mode" considering the only reason they even have driving controls is because they legally have to at this time.[/QUOTE] And? I didn't say I was talking about Google's car.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47744959]And? I didn't say I was talking about Google's car.[/QUOTE] Then how does your post make sense in response to mine if I was obviously talking about google's car?
wat's next, self-driving humans?
Low-skill labor jobs will eventually be eliminated, which will only leave people to achieve higher educations strengthening our overall infrastructure methinks
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47741934]Computers aren't flawless. [/QUOTE] Wrong. They do exactly as you tell them. They are not capable of doing otherwise. They also are [B]much[/B] faster than humans in reaction time. To say a computer isn't flawless carries a tone of "computers make mistakes too, y'know", which is the most ludditic(If that is an adjective?) sentence up there with "One time I was using a calculator and it came up with the wrong number" [QUOTE] I mean it's very possible it's 0 but we don't know because Google hasn't said anything about it as far as I know. After all, 700,000 miles have been done in these cars where the driver was in control, who knows why exactly for each of those miles.[/QUOTE] The computer. Very explicitly just the computer. The human has been there in the event that the computer needs to be overridden, for cases that hadn't been programmed in at the time. In the early stages, much of the distance was recorded by a driver, and simulated by a computer. Later, the cars were just driven by computers. In those cumulative 700,000 miles, there had not been one single accident caused by the computer, either in-simulation, or in real life. (edit: I'm being told now that the 700k is not the cumulative amount, so replace 700k with whatever that amount is) [QUOTE=Antdawg;47741848]Makes you wonder how many accidents they avoided by having the[B] driver take over from the computer at a moment's notice[/B][/QUOTE] This is so implausible, it surprises me that someone who thinks this can happen is capable of using a web forum. Even if we assume a computer wasn't more capable than a human at avoiding accidents, and if we go even more ridiculous and assume a computer was [I]less [/I]capable than a human at avoiding accidents, the human still needs to have superhero reaction time. I'm not sure how one can see into the future of how the computer will react, and then make a conscious thought to switch over control, with their own, better plan in mind, that they came up with in a split second. [QUOTE] I'm not saying this to diss self-driving cars, but a faultless record after a million miles is a huge thing. I haven't read anywhere about how many times a driver has had to override the computer because I don't think Google has published that.[/QUOTE] [B][U]Zero. [/U][/B] At no point did a human change the course of the car(real, or in simulation) while [U]testing if a computer can drive.[/U] The 700k miles is purely computer-driven or computer-simulated. If someone had just altered the path, it wouldn't be a very useful test result, would it.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;47746999]-snip-[/QUOTE] [del]You should read the article better. 700k miles were driven by humans. The computer drove only 300k miles.[/del]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47747020][B]You should read the article better.[/B] 700k miles were driven by humans. The computer drove only 300k miles.[/QUOTE] Wrong. 1 million was driven by computers, an [I]additional[/I] 700k was driven by humans.
[QUOTE=Levelog;47747031]Wrong. 1 million was driven by computers, an [I]additional[/I] 700k was driven by humans.[/QUOTE] My bad
Although im going to assume people who say that computers make mistakes really mean that the people who program computers make mistakes. I would hope that it is common knowledge that computers themselves pretty much make mistakes only under the rarest circumstances.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;47747134]Although im going to assume people who say that computers make mistakes really mean that the people who program computers make mistakes. I would hope that it is common knowledge that computers themselves pretty much make mistakes only under the rarest circumstances.[/QUOTE] I think pretty much everyone who in this context says "computers" actually means programs. When someone complains that their computer is doing stupid shit it's usually Windows' fault and they know it but it's really just semantics.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47747162]I think pretty much everyone who in this context says "computers" actually means programs. When someone complains that their computer is doing stupid shit it's usually Windows' fault and they know it but it's really just semantics.[/QUOTE] actually usually it's user error Just because you don't know what to do to fix the problem doesn't mean it's the computer's fault. A sign of poor design on Microsoft's end, maybe, but a not a fault of the machine.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47747215]actually usually it's user error Just because you don't know what to do to fix the problem doesn't mean it's the computer's fault. A sign of poor design on Microsoft's end, maybe, but a not a fault of the machine.[/QUOTE] or programmer error, which is the (slight) risk here
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47747215]actually usually it's user error Just because you don't know what to do to fix the problem doesn't mean it's the computer's fault. A sign of poor design on Microsoft's end, maybe, but a not a fault of the machine.[/QUOTE] Nah seriously windows has some dumb things sometimes that are incomprehensible that you only notice when troubleshooting But yeah maybe my choice of words was poor but you still know what I meant.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47747282]Nah seriously windows has some dumb things sometimes that are incomprehensible that you only notice when troubleshooting But yeah maybe my choice of words was poor but you still know what I meant.[/QUOTE] Just because it's designed to work in an inconvenient or impractical way doesn't mean it isn't functioning precisely as it should.
The human variable is a big questionmark though It's one thing to be running your self driver around the affluent mountain view and palo alto campuses It's entirely another using one in south central where road rage is a regular thing, to what extent will self drivers avoid accidents? Can I force one off the road and potentially kill the occupants by fucking with its accident avoidance system?
i mean you can kinda already force someone off the road with your vehicle causing some kind of damage, the computer will just respond faster since it won't get "scared" i mean i could ram my car into another and [I]something[/I] bad will happen, there could be a fucking reptilian from xenu behind the wheel for all it matters
[QUOTE=Sonador;47747402]The human variable is a big questionmark though It's one thing to be running your self driver around the affluent mountain view and palo alto campuses It's entirely another using one in south central where road rage is a regular thing, to what extent will self drivers avoid accidents? Can I force one off the road and potentially kill the occupants by fucking with its accident avoidance system?[/QUOTE] No, and then you're just causing a crash that you're purely liable for causing you to go to jail over road rage. Issues like that are outliers no matter how much anyone insists otherwise. Also, if they're all in self driving cars, they're not going to be filled with road rage because the traffic flow will be computer optimized rather than a shit ton of people making a shit ton of independent decisions they can only communicate so well.
people don't actually care about safety. they care about being in control the facts are that google cars have a much lower failure rate than human drivers, but that's doesn't mean shit because a) most drivers thinks that they're the best driver on the road b) nobody wants to admit they're worse than a computer at doing manly shit like driving cars and boning it's like that friend who runs red lights and texts while driving yet only trusts themselves to be behind the wheel [editline]18th May 2015[/editline] "what if i jump in front of a self-driving car? what if i try to run it off the road to fuck with its system??" ok cool go do that right now with human driven cars and have fun in jail, the hospital, or the morgue
[QUOTE=Jund;47747450]people don't actually care about safety. they care about being in control the facts are that google cars have a much lower failure rate than human drivers, but that's doesn't mean shit because a) most drivers thinks that they're the best driver on the road b) nobody wants to admit they're worse than a computer at doing manly shit like driving cars and boning it's like that friend who runs red lights and texts while driving yet only trusts themselves to be behind the wheel[/QUOTE] How many people would much rather just be texting (for example) though? Clearly they are idiots for texting and driving, but given the choice would they continue to text and drive, or would they text and let the car deal with driving? But yea, you're always going to have (A) the idiots who think they are great drivers, and (B) the people who like driving, both of which are going to resist the transition to self-driving cars up until it becomes illegal for humans to drive on public roads in 15 to 20 years. I however think those groups are the minority, and that most people would much rather do something else while their car drives them on their daily commute. [quote]"what if i jump in front of a self-driving car? what if i try to run it off the road to fuck with its system??" ok cool go do that right now with human driven cars and have fun in jail, hospital, or the morgue[/quote] That's another great thing about self-driving cars, they can not only react much quicker to the person jumping out in the road, but they can also (to some degree) predict that the person might jump out in the road, and because they are keeping track of everything around them they know what the best way to avoid both the person in the road and any other obstacles (if such an outcome is possible). Not to mention the car can take some preemptive action to prevent ending up in a situation where there are no good options (like slowing down). It's also good to remember just because the car is driving doesn't mean there isn't still an irrational human inside.
Researching Google in car without using a phone (check)
[QUOTE=RopaDope;47746827]Low-skill labor jobs will eventually be eliminated, which will only leave people to achieve higher educations strengthening our overall infrastructure methinks[/QUOTE] Yeah, how about all those people with a college degree that end up working as a waitress or something because there is no jobs in their sector. Like with every other job there is also a limit of how many highly educated people a society needs. For example with advances in AI and high level programming languages, even the number of programmers needed will eventually start to decline.
On the topic of driverless trucks replacing truck driving jobs, would it not be beneficial to employ driverless trucks in remote regions / dangerous areas, to reduce risk to human drivers who can instead focus on driving safer routes? I think automation would be awesome though, imagine how much it'd impact our lives.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;47747705]Yeah, how about all those people with a college degree that end up working as a waitress or something because there is no jobs in their sector. Like with every other job there is also a limit of how many highly educated people a society needs. For example with advances in AI and high level programming languages, even the number of programmers needed will eventually start to decline.[/QUOTE] Society's needs change. Unfortunately it does not always change to specific people's interests. I fully encourage people to go into areas they truly enjoy, but don't be surprised if you can't get a job because it's a dead/saturated sector. [editline]18th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=loopoo;47747720]On the topic of driverless trucks replacing truck driving jobs, would it not be beneficial to employ driverless trucks in remote regions / dangerous areas, to reduce risk to human drivers who can instead focus on driving safer routes? I think automation would be awesome though, imagine how much it'd impact our lives.[/QUOTE] Ice road [del]truckers[/del] robots.
[QUOTE=loopoo;47747720]On the topic of driverless trucks replacing truck driving jobs, would it not be beneficial to employ driverless trucks in remote regions / dangerous areas, to reduce risk to human drivers who can instead focus on driving safer routes? I think automation would be awesome though, imagine how much it'd impact our lives.[/QUOTE] There are several problems here: - First those people will lose their job (which is possibly payed more than the average trucker) - Then Discovery channel won be able to make a adrenaline boiling show like World's Toughest Trucker or something - Then you wont get your daily dose of truck entertainment You see how many people this inflicts :v:
I fail to see how being rear ended is ALWAYS the fault of the driver behind.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.