wheelsmithy wrote:Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: Put me in the not interested, no way, no how, never ever camp. I have no use for a self driving car.I can think of one or two...Others not suitable for mixed audiences.
I'd give up alcohol, sex or whatever else you can think of long before I'd give up driving.
In reply to Nick (Bo) Comstock:
Yeah, ...Poor attempt at levity. I, for one, am not much of a quitter. (while true, also an attempt at levity)
Appleseed wrote: ...what could have been a decent thread.
Welcome to GRM, where cars are politics and religion all rolled into one.
Post redacted due to being bleak and pessimistic.
I'm not keen on automated cars. AI and automation is bad news for man in the long run... I'll leave it at that
Joe Gearin wrote: The day they outlaw operating a car by yourself is the day I leave this country. I have no desire to own a car that drives itself, and I have no desire to live in a country that won't allow me to operate an automobile without a computer deciding my every move. For the non-enthusiast masses, it's no doubt safer. However, I don't live my life looking for the "safest" way to do everything---- actually it's quite the opposite. I frequently seek out danger as it keeps me vibrant and alive. I'd rather live in a dangerous world, than be isolated in a perfectly safe "cocoon" while my soul dies. Get off my Lawn!
Took the words out of my mouth.
Interesting No one wants to tackle the moral/legal implications of allowing machines to decide who lives/dies.
In reply to Bobzilla:
Actually it would be the programmer that makes that decision through the software.
While not there when the decision is made, the groundwork put in place by the programmer will determine the decisions made by the car.
Unless you are implying the car will learn morals and use that learning to make the decision.
Bobzilla wrote: Interesting No one wants to tackle the moral/legal implications of allowing machines to decide who lives/dies.
Your question implicitly suggests humans are more capable of making moral/ legal decisions than machines, which is false.
Right/ wrong in a legal environment is completely guided by rules and guidelines, which machines are far more capable of following than humans, especially when the rules and guidelines are complex. Humans prefer to follow the path that meets their personal needs than the one predetermined by societal rules.
The same could be said for moral questions.
KyAllroad wrote: In reply to Vigo: Wow. Dude, I thought I had a dark view of the world. That's impressive!
I've had similar thoughts for years. Our govt/politicians/inside powers have no need to make anyone "happy" - they only need to do just enough so that few are willing to die in order to affect change. Because for all of the general whining on both sides of the political spectrum, that is the only way real change will ever happen.
As far as self-driving cars... I see them happening whether we like it our not. However, I also doubt we will see a complete take-over. At least not for another 50 years, at best (or worst). I could see separated HOV lanes in high-density areas becoming self-driving only.
I've said it before, but there is no way a computer could drive down the gravel road to my house after 3" of snow obscures the road edges and puts the car into a scenario where it needs to be going fast enough to have momentum for the soft spots. No programming is going to cover speeding up to smooth out washboards or passing farm implementation by driving on the shoulder.
The real question for me is why are all these people driving around anyway? We have the technology right now to do almost every desk job from essentially anywhere. How many traffic deaths would be avoided if the ten biggest office buildings in every town over 200k people were torn down and the jobs distributed to homes or dispersed office centers? Tear them down, and how many shops and restaurants, with their commuting employees, would be unnecessary? How much energy would that save; how much less co2 would be generated; how many lives saved?
Assuming urban lifestyle is the way of the future and forcing urban driven decisions on everyone is great and all, but maybe we should leverage our technology to consider other alternatives as well.
Driven5 wrote: I don't know anybody who can argue with somebody whose "life's odds" statistically have 50% of the current population dying each and every day.
WRONG - Thats very clearly NOT what he was saying. I appreciate your attempt to walk away with a snarky mic drop, but your conclusion does not reflect the discussion. Any one persons odd's are 50:50, the entirety of populations odds' are far more complex to calculate
Lets also take into account how people maintain their vehicles. I see atrocious acts of automotive cruelty daily - cars with missing body panels, cars unable to maintain 50mph on the freeway, cars that do an awesome James Bond smoke screen impression...the list goes on and on.
Now, lets say that some form of autonomous vehicle legislation is passed. Now, that fudgepacker who cant keep his car idling well enough to slow to a stop without stalling, is now enabled to commute with even less involvement with his applia...err, car. 2 years later, with failing brakes and a wheezing head gasket, his rattletrap is even more dangerous. People dont maintain their cheap, old cars. I REALLY dont see them keeping the optical systems or the servos and steppers up to snuff that would be required to make a car drive itself.
Why are human-operated cars better than binary? Because humans can account for things like a mushy brake pedal or a blown strut. Im not convinced that a computer could. Or, at least, a computer of the grade and sophistication that the Auto industry has been able to turn out thus far. I can only imagine the complexity that an autonomous car would need in terms of cameras and sensors in order to truly mimic a humans decision making and ability to adjust to changing conditions. The cost alone would be prohibitive (to make it truly a replacement for man anyway).
Also, consider what happens when something really crazy happens - steering linkage breaks, or optical guidance camera shorts out, brake master cylinder seal blows out. All of these things, a human may be able to overcome, at least in the moment, allowing the car to be guided safely to the shoulder. Good luck convincing me that a computer could compensate for total loss of steering or brakes in the moment, and not create a spectacular fireball of doom.
SVreX wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Interesting No one wants to tackle the moral/legal implications of allowing machines to decide who lives/dies.Your question implicitly suggests humans are more capable of making moral/ legal decisions than machines, which is false. Right/ wrong in a legal environment is completely guided by rules and guidelines, which machines are far more capable of following than humans, especially when the rules and guidelines are complex. Humans prefer to follow the path that meets their personal needs than the one predetermined by societal rules. The same could be said for moral questions.
What in getting at is this: when a person chooses to sacrifice themselves to save others (which I've seen countless times) it's considered noble. What happens whe. The person no longer makes those choices? There's no longer the element of personal choice. So if the computer decides the same choice be person would have made you now have family members distraut by the death that THEY feel the computer caused.
Legally this will be one hell of a profitable solution to a lot of lawyers that is for sure.
This entire thread should be marked as the definition of how every internet discussion goes...except no one mentioned Hitler yet.
Hitler.
There. Now it is perfect.
Glad the voice of reason showed up...eyeroll
oldopelguy wrote: there is no way a computer could drive down the gravel road to my house after 3" of snow obscures the road edges and puts the car into a scenario where it needs to be going fast enough to have momentum for the soft spots.
EDIT - My original reply was kinda sarcastic, so let me say this. There's a lot of smart people thinking about how to solve these kinds of problems.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fq_pIaJZKqI
also, this thread:
great for high school science fairs, but I hope I'm taking a dirt nap before I'm forced to submit 
In reply to 4cylndrfury:
I really don't see the maintenance argument applying until decades down the road, if at all. The fact that self driving cars will probably be fairly expensive, coupled with the speed that electronics become obsolete, I doubt we'll see poor people limping old autonomous cars around. I think of them more like smart phones are now, where most people replace them every year or two in order to have the latest tech. This will probably increase subscription/ride sharing services.
Which leads to the question of how these will communicate with one another (and their surroundings), and what happens when that protocol changes? 20 years from now, will 5 year old autonomous tech even be compatible with whatever is current at the time, or are those 5 year old cars just junked at that point?
FlightService wrote: This entire thread should be marked as the definition of how every internet discussion goes...except no one mentioned Hitler yet. Hitler. There. Now it is perfect.
Here's my view on it:
As long as it's read for entertainment, then its meeting its purpose.
For those that choose to participate, then this is their soap box, but it is unlikely to sway anyone's opinions any more than if they were to stand on the corner shouting their opinion at people driving past.
Everyone just needs to realize that no matter how much they write on an Internet forum, they aren't likely to change anyone's opinion on the subject.
But it has the potential to be mentally stimulating and sometimes fun to engage in the debate, just don't take it personally if someone doesn't agree.
So battle on, I need some more entertainment while sitting through meetings.
In reply to jstand:
pretty much. I think there are things that people haven't thought about that need to be brought up to think about. But I have no interest in changing anyone's opinion. I like reading dissenting opinions. I may not agree with them, or think they are smart but I enjoy seeing another viewpoint. Something that could be shared in our society a lot more rather than living in your own echo chamber
jstand wrote:KyAllroad wrote: In reply to Driven5: As long as berkeleying feels good there is ZERO chance that the birth rate will fall. And since we are all so very very wired to obey the pleasure center of our primate brains, that's not going away either. The biological drive to reproduce is just ridiculous and (one could argue) completely against our self interests as a species. Look at parts of the planet which have been wracked with disease, famine, drought, and war for literally generations. Like Somalia for instance, you'd think that a sensible person would look around and say "no way I'm bringing my potential offspring into this environment". And yet the place is positively awash with kids. And to fully steer this thread into the weeds, global famine or disease is the only realistic way to get the numbers back into the territory of "sustainable". The trick is something bad enough to make a real difference but not so bad that systems collapse and the population reduction becomes self sustaining and we regress to a pre-industrial condition.There some new technology called birth control, so you can get that good feeling without anyone getting pregnant. So yes, there are regions where birth rates are still high, but the majority are declining. If the data is accurate: Fertility rates are declining
While that is great, Catholicism preaches the opposite. They are also quite actrive in 3rd world countries where BC is sorely needed. I'm not slamming catholics on this. It's your choice, your religion do what you want. But it is definitely having an impact.
oldopelguy wrote: I've said it before, but there is no way a computer could drive down the gravel road to my house after 3" of snow obscures the road edges and puts the car into a scenario where it needs to be going fast enough to have momentum for the soft spots. No programming is going to cover speeding up to smooth out washboards or passing farm implementation by driving on the shoulder.
Disagree. It's nothing more than data inputs and programming. Just like someone who has never driven down your driveway in 3" of fresh snow would need to learn how to, a computer would need to learn as well.
The difference is while a human driver generally only has their own experiences to drawn from when negotiating an unfamiliar situation, a computer has the ability to draw on thousands or even millions of other computers' experiences to base decisions on.
While I might personally rather be in control, I have been stuck behind so many tentative drivers in poor conditions that I would not be opposed to letting a computer take control away from them. And they would likely be happier about that themselves.
jstand wrote: Everyone just needs to realize that no matter how much they write on an Internet forum, they aren't likely to change anyone's opinion on the subject.
exactly, that's why you should put your opinion on a sign and stick it in your front yard like with presidential candidates.
that's how you change peoples opinions, with a plastic sign so everyone who drives by can be swayed by your efforts
Personally I see self driving mass public transport as what the future will be. Why are there 600 cars all going the exact same direction as me at the exact same time in separate cars? If the postal system can figure it out with mail why not the mass transit system too? Why even have 90% of the jobs we have when they can be automated or done from home. Once all the luddites are out of the way you guys will see
As for self driving cars now, yes please! Just keep them out of one of the lanes. I want to be able to pass them and the long line of non-self-driving-lemmings that will be tailgating the self-driving cars, with their heads up their... phones
edizzle89 wrote: exactly, that's why you should put your opinion on a sign and stick it in your front yard like with presidential candidates. that's how you change peoples opinions, with a plastic sign so everyone who drives by can be swayed by your efforts
You'll need to log in to post.
