In reply to dculberson:
Yes, but the arguement was that computers think better today, not that they will in the future. But we have autonomous cars on the road now- and I will tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't think better than people.
In reply to DILYSI Dave:
ever lost another car in the sun? I have. That's essentially what happened to the tesla. The sensors and computing will never be perfect. But they don't have to be. They only have to be better than the average person to result in a net increase in safety. And that's a pretty low bar. Even in this early pre-production beta attempt, Tesla has logged FAR fewer fatalities per mile than human drivers at large.
We are a bit far into the discussion for this, but in reality, there is not enough data for a conclusion. We have a data point of 1. All that really tells us is that these cars can cause a fatal accident. Tesla claims 130,000,000 autonomous miles, so that puts the autonomous fatality rate at .77 per 1,000,000,000 miles. The national average last year (a bad year, largest increase in 50 years) was 1.22 fatal accidents per 100,000,000mi. So with the data we have, autonomas cars are better. But if an autonomas car kills someone tomorrow, their rate doubles, and drivers are better. Not really, it just shows the limitations of a small sample size. Also consider that autonomas cars aren't really autonomas yet- they still have drivers. In this instance, the driver wasn't paying attention at all when the car failed, and was killed. How many serious failures in other cars were caught and corrected? If the answer is anything other than zero, the autonomas car's true numbers wouldn't look so good. The truth is, there is not enough information to know either way.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
That's not what I said.
And it doesn't really matter if they think better then people. The only thing that matters is is they can or will be able to drive better then people. Right now, the autonomous cars have 1 death. Human drivers kill about 30,000 people per year.
Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave:ever lost another car in the sun? I have. That's essentially what happened to the tesla. The sensors and computing will never be perfect. But they don't have to be. They only have to be better than the average person to result in a net increase in safety. And that's a pretty low bar. Even in this early pre-production beta attempt, Tesla has logged FAR fewer fatalities per mile than human drivers at large.We are a bit far into the discussion for this, but in reality, there is not enough data for a conclusion. We have a data point of 1. All that really tells us is that these cars can cause a fatal accident. Tesla claims 130,000,000 autonomous miles, so that puts the autonomous fatality rate at .77 per 1,000,000,000 miles. The national average last year (a bad year, largest increase in 50 years) was 1.22 fatal accidents per 100,000,000mi. So with the data we have, autonomas cars are better. But if an autonomas car kills someone tomorrow, their rate doubles, and drivers are better. Not really, it just shows the limitations of a small sample size. Also consider that autonomas cars aren't really autonomas yet- they still have drivers. In this instance, the driver wasn't paying attention at all when the car failed, and was killed. How many serious failures in other cars were caught and corrected? If the answer is anything other than zero, the autonomas car's true numbers wouldn't look so good. The truth is, there is not enough information to know either way.
Good post. And yeah, extremely limited data set. But since we are on the front end of development, it only gets better from here. I will still get blinded by the sun, but I bet the next Tesla never loses a white 18 wheeler tank to the background.
So, what are the specific rules associated with these self-driving features? I thought there where still essentially illegal. How is it legal to even have these modes? I know they have hands on wheel requirements, but it's not terribly hard to predict there are a good percentage of people that will work around that.
Seems like a prime candidate for a big lawsuit.
In reply to aircooled:
I agree, In the courtroom and the media is will be where the battle for acceptance will be fought. They don't have to just have better stats, they have to compete with the emotional arguments.
DILYSI Dave wrote: I will still get blinded by the sun, but I bet the next Tesla never loses a white 18 wheeler tank to the background.
Exactly. And every existing Tesla with the assisted driving feature. It's like being able to "educate" every driver on the road, whether they like it or not.
Personally, I'm with SVreX. I still love driving - hell, I just completed a 1380 mile vacation drive out to Mid-Ohio and back in a Spitfire - but I commute way more than I care to. Commuting is not fun. If I could replace that commuting time with a self-driving car, my quality of life would likely increase. I feel the same way about electric cars. I have no desire to give up my gas-burners for occasional fun drives, but electric would be a lot better for commuting.
Again, I don't think human-driven cars will be outlawed from all public roads, but I can definitely imagine a time when they won't be allowed on high-speed, limited access highways. I don't have a problem with that.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to aircooled: I agree, In the courtroom and the media is will be where the battle for acceptance will be fought. They don't have to just have better stats, they have to compete with the emotional arguments.
What I am getting to is that Tesla has allowed and even tempted drivers to use this feature which I am pretty sure is still illegal. I am not concerned about how safe the self-driving mode is, more that it is illegal at this time.
(btw - I don't personally think Tesla should be sued for this, I feel pretty confident the car drives better then most all drivers)
I don't see how combining lane keeping assistance with adaptive cruise control counts as "self-driving" such that it would be illegal.
Maybe once autonomous vehicles take over, I can finally let go of my worry about road salt.
Mitchell wrote: Maybe once autonomous vehicles take over, I can finally let go of my worry about road salt.
But then your artificially intelligent car will. And it'll sit in the garage quietly sobbing, feeling itself melt, after you take it out in the slush. You're a monster.
I hope we don't go to all self driving cars, but on the same token I would really like terrible drivers to not be driving anymore.
Maybe self driving cars could be used for people that totally suck at driving and have the tickets to prove it? Sort of like the blow to start that dui drivers get.
In reply to SVreX:
In reply to Boost_Crazy: That's not what I said.
What do you mean that's not what you said? You said it very clearly...
I love it when people think they can out think a computer. There is no way a human can ever make the number of decisions a computer can, and it is just silly thinking a human will ultimately be able to drive better than a computer. There is nothing special about humans that makes them more capable of operating machinery than a computer.
That sounds like you said it to me. Or were you just being dramatic?
And it doesn't really matter if they think better then people. The only thing that matters is is they can or will be able to drive better then people.
This. This is where we differ. The bar at which you seem to be willing to accept autonomous cars is much lower than mine. I'm under the impression that any improvement over the average human driver is good enough for your acceptance. I can understand how an arguement can be made for that. But to me, there needs to be a very clear advantage. I won't just accept that in exchange for lower overall accident rates, good drivers will die in random freak accidents because of a bug. I look at it a lot like passenger side airbags. Was it worth it to save some unbelted adults that some kids died in minor accidents?
Really, there is a lot more to this discussion, the whole human Vs. computer part is just the start. You have the societal implications and questions about personal freedom. The legal issues. Security issues. And no one has brought up the economic issues yet, which could change the whole arguement.
Can't help but think in the back of my mind this entire self driving car thing is about some 50's dream.
That... and 'because we can do it now' (well, almost anyway). While I am impressed w/ the technology I'm too old school to embrace it.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
You keep ascribing things to me just so you can argue. I am not sharing my opinion, I am sharing the observations of the current state of affairs and where we are heading, based on the input from industry professionals who know a lot more about his stuff than me.
My opinion of what is right or wrong is completely irrelevant. I am not a legislator or regulator who is making decisions or policy. When lawyers and regulators are satisfied at performance, the product will be adopted. They won't ask my opinion, nor yours. End of story.
And no, the quote you posted does not say what you claim it did. I did NOT say "computers think better than people today". I said "it is silly thinking a human will ultimately be able to drive better than a computer. "
Argue with someone else. I'm done.
"it is silly thinking a human will ultimately be able to drive better than a computer. "
You just quoted yourself saying something that you never said. You posted multiple times, doubling down on what you did say. It would have saved you a lot of time to have cleared that up many posts ago. The word "ultimately" has a completely different implication than what you actually wrote. With that word, you could substitute "industry professionals" with "sci-fi writers over the last 50 years" and it would still work.
I thought we were having an honest discussion, and you repeatedly steered it toward an arguement. You seem surprised that I don't agree with you, yet your last post contradicts many of your previous posts. Change the name above your post, and you wouldn't need me, you could argue with yourself. Ironically, your last post brought up he same point I said a page ago...
My opinion of what is right or wrong is completely irrelevant. I am not a legislator or regulator who is making decisions or policy. When lawyers and regulators are satisfied at performance, the product will be adopted. They won't ask my opinion, nor yours. End of story.
We agree on this, just not on the timetable.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
You really need to stop. You are destroying your credibility by misquoting things and arguing for no apparent reason.
I made the statement on July 2 @ 9:17. It included the word "ultimately". You quoted it on July 3 @ 1:36 and included the same word.
I can't take you seriously if you are going to have such a big reading comprehension fail and then argue to the contrary.
This is worthless. I apologize to the rest of the community for this stupid and ridiculous tangent and the part I have played in it. I am not trying to be defensive, but I have a hard time accepting the blame for things I did not say and do not believe.
I stand by my opinions, at least those that I actually said.
Can we please talk about cars instead of grammar?
aircooled wrote:MrJoshua wrote: In reply to aircooled: I agree, In the courtroom and the media is will be where the battle for acceptance will be fought. They don't have to just have better stats, they have to compete with the emotional arguments.What I am getting to is that Tesla has allowed and even tempted drivers to use this feature which I am pretty sure is still illegal. I am not concerned about how safe the self-driving mode is, more that it is illegal at this time. (btw - I don't personally think Tesla should be sued for this, I feel pretty confident the car drives better then most all drivers)
I believe the "self-driving" feature is legal in states where it has been directly addressed and in an ambiguous or gray area in states where it hasn't been addressed. I don't know of any states where it is clearly illegal.
Seems like an easy enough way for the government to take out a Navy SEAL pretty much just like they did with General Patton.
Least that is the signal that came in on my tinfoil hat this morning.
red_stapler wrote: I don't see how combining lane keeping assistance with adaptive cruise control counts as "self-driving" such that it would be illegal.
That's probably the best argument Tesla has on their side. Jackasses like my dad's boss have been using these together as an autonomous highway driving mode for years.
2 points on this.
1st, Using the single data point that the dude did not duck, there is no way is was paying any attention or looking at all.
2nd, does this make anyone else think of Anchorman 2 and the Winnebago?
I'm an outlier here.
I personally don't care how safe autonomous driving is. Let me explain that. It's obviously not now, but at some point in the future, undoubtedly, you will be able to show me enough data to convince me that autonomous driving is safer than self driving.
I won't care. I want to have that control. I don't like giving up control of things; even if I am not perfect at them.
I'm a monster. A liberty-loving monster.
In reply to tuna55:
You are not an outlier at all. I am in complete agreement with you. I want control too.
I would also like to have a cell phone that doesn't track me. And perhaps free chocolate chip cookies for life.
Since neither is going to happen, I'm just developing Plan B. 
The big players will change the world, whether I like it ir not. I will live off the scraps that fall off the table.
SVreX wrote: In reply to tuna55: I would also like to have a cell phone that doesn't track me. And perhaps free chocolate chip cookies for life. Since neither is going to happen, I'm just developing Plan B.
A cell phone that doesn't track you could only exist from the goodness of the hearts of a cell service provider - a cell phone that's incapable of tracking you is technologically impossible. Even if your cell phone worked like the radar of an F22/F35, making a call would temporarily highlight your location.
Therefore, you want a cell service provider that carefully restricts which employees can access cell tower data and sends any record of which cell tower you're connected to directly to /dev/null. This is technically possible but perhaps not legally possible.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Right. AND I want free chocolate chip cookies.
You'll need to log in to post.
