3 Reasons Why Computers Will Drive Better Than You

[21CW]killerofall;1042069414 said:
This is an easy problem to solve.

Rule 1: Car must stay on the road at all times.
Rule 2: Avoid all collisions if avoidable without breaking rule 1, else minimize impact.

These 2 rules will remove all ethical decisions.

Note that these rules are not required if there are no human drivers as the only way an accident could occur without drivers would be due to mechanical failure, ie breaks failing, axle breaking, tire blowout, etc.

Not that simple. Kid walks into street and after computing scenarios only two possible outcomes will save one life, others kill both. Scenario 1: Wreck driver possible killing driver and saving child. Scenario 2: Hit pedestrian possibly killing pedestrian but saving driver.

There has to be a line of code that will eventually prioritize the people in the car or out of the car and how does one decide that for all collisions? Does driver always take precedence? or do pedestrians? What about numbers like a car full of 6 people vs 1 pedestrian. It has to be programmed to make a decision because if it is forced to stay on the road then what if more collisions could be avoided by letting it veer off the road or lane?

It sounds easy to just make it stay on the road but we could sit and contemplate scenarios all day long for both sides of the arguement, which right now with a human driver it is easy to just rely on their judgement. It isn't controllable from an outsider, but when you make everyones car make the same decisions, then how do you decide? If cars get locked on virtual rails then it will make itself so undesirable it won't penetrate the market anyways so we could avoid it all together.
 
Not that simple. Kid walks into street and after computing scenarios only two possible outcomes will save one life, others kill both. Scenario 1: Wreck driver possible killing driver and saving child. Scenario 2: Hit pedestrian possibly killing pedestrian but saving driver.

There has to be a line of code that will eventually prioritize the people in the car or out of the car and how does one decide that for all collisions? Does driver always take precedence? or do pedestrians? What about numbers like a car full of 6 people vs 1 pedestrian. It has to be programmed to make a decision because if it is forced to stay on the road then what if more collisions could be avoided by letting it veer off the road or lane?

It sounds easy to just make it stay on the road but we could sit and contemplate scenarios all day long for both sides of the arguement, which right now with a human driver it is easy to just rely on their judgement. It isn't controllable from an outsider, but when you make everyones car make the same decisions, then how do you decide? If cars get locked on virtual rails then it will make itself so undesirable it won't penetrate the market anyways so we could avoid it all together.

The driver's manual states to always yield to pedestrians.

Further cars these days are built such that your odds of surviving any crash are great...maybe not walking away from it unscathed, but it takes extreme speeds (and/or recklessness) for an operator in a car to kill themselves. Unlike a pedestrian, who if they have an encounter with a car is pretty much automatically life threatening injury at a minimum.

As I said earlier...odds are these vehicles will be so prohibitively expensive you won't see them regularly in consumer hands for a long while (read until the get affordable on the used car market).
 
Not for long. Humans are slow and error prone.

Look at AMD's CPU design department...mostly computer designed as I understand. Computers focus better and do a consistently superior job with no expectation of pay or rest as opposed to humans. The days of humans being needed to write code ain't long for the world.

Horses thought they'd be needed forever too.

It worked so well for them...
 
The driver's manual states to always yield to pedestrians.

Further cars these days are built such that your odds of surviving any crash are great...maybe not walking away from it unscathed, but it takes extreme speeds (and/or recklessness) for an operator in a car to kill themselves. Unlike a pedestrian, who if they have an encounter with a car is pretty much automatically life threatening injury at a minimum.

As I said earlier...odds are these vehicles will be so prohibitively expensive you won't see them regularly in consumer hands for a long while (read until the get affordable on the used car market).

Not when the kid jump from between two park car chasing his ball...
Most serious injuries in car happens in low speed collisions.
 
Even if hacking becomes "possible" or becomes a "small problem". It wouldn't matter because of the amount of lives this would save. I full expect it to be a problem, but irregardless it's going to save lives and therefore is worth it.
 
It worked so well for them...

Look at video games. DirectX and other APIs. Hell compiling code itself is just that-handing your code over to a machine to do all the legwork of transforming human readable into something the machine can do. Teams of programmers are no longer needed to be employed by software companies to write code to interface with drivers. You can write a video game tomorrow, all you need is to license an engine and get cracking.

Machines writing (or filling in) the code gaps is already happening on a daily basis.


Programmers aren't long for the world. Companies don't even care about good code-they just care about code that is "good enough" to save on their immediate bottom line.
 
Even if hacking becomes "possible" or becomes a "small problem". It wouldn't matter because of the amount of lives this would save. I full expect it to be a problem, but irregardless it's going to save lives and therefore is worth it.
I had a discussion with my friend the other day about the same thing, and we both agreed that it would be interesting if VIPs still had "offline" cars as a protection from assassination.
 
That's cute. I'll give one reason why they won't.

Maps

Yep that's right maps. Because in the entire history of mapping or more importantly GPS mapping there has yet to be a single 100% accurate one. Once you get out of the city, I've lost track of the number of times even google maps is just dead wrong. GPS has been around how long now? Yea good luck convincing me that maps will be 100% accurate all the time anytime in the foreseeable future. If those can't be made 100% accurate, then completely driverless cars 100% of the time aren't a possibility.
 
If they were human controlled until you hit the freeway, it'd work great. Freeway is 99% vehicles. Side streets have more people crossing the roads, other obstacles. Going on the freeway, you could have vehicles go high speeds, all uniform. Traffic might get slowed down, but if an exit is packed, traffic would slow a few MPH down the way so it doesn't turn into a standstill. Just highly managed traffic.
 
That's cute. I'll give one reason why they won't.

Maps

Yep that's right maps. Because in the entire history of mapping or more importantly GPS mapping there has yet to be a single 100% accurate one. Once you get out of the city, I've lost track of the number of times even google maps is just dead wrong. GPS has been around how long now? Yea good luck convincing me that maps will be 100% accurate all the time anytime in the foreseeable future. If those can't be made 100% accurate, then completely driverless cars 100% of the time aren't a possibility.

I don't know what is the connection between maps and computer controlled cars in your head. And I'm not sure I want to hear it. There is no correlation between the quality of maps in google and the ability of a computer program to drive a car.
 
Agressive uh, I'm aggressive, I'm 55, I've never had an accident.

Idiots think aggressive is the problem, aggressive isn't the problem, aggressive isn't a negative driving trait. An aggressive driver is for the most part at least paying attention to what the fuck he is doing. It's not aggressive drivers that are texting, falling asleep, jamming up the passing lane while they drive side by side with a guy on their right.

It's these clueless sheeple idiots that think that as they hog that passing lane and collect 20 cars behind them that they are fucking justified because they are doing the speed limit.

Self-righteous, Holier-then-thou, inconsiderate assholes who are the ones driving others to rage. that's my response to people who think aggressive drivers are a problem on the roads.

I'm not sure what you define as aggressive. But my definition is, excessive speeding for no reason, using turning lanes to go straight, cutting off people, switching lanes every second, just because there is a 3feet gap there, etc that makes an aggressive driver. If you're like that then it's funny that you should mention being inconsiderate, because aggressive driving is the very definition of being inconsiderate. Anyone could drive like that, but they don't because they choose not to get on the nerves on others. If everyone would drive like that it wouldn't work. Noone would get anywhere.

Aggressive driving only works as long as nobody else is doing it. But if two of that kind meet at an unexpected place then shit can go wrong. Just look at some russian dashcam footage, that's what aggressive is.

That reminds me I didn't even mention that computers don't get out of the car and smash your windscreen or try to bash your head in with a bat either, for some perceived or real grievance.

Texting and sleeping drivers are a problem too, no doubt about that.
 
You don't eat unless you get small pieces of paper and then exchange them for food. You don't get small pieces of paper unless you "work".
Right now yes this is true but it doesn't have to be that way and horses don't vote and aren't subject to the same laws as people.

Things like Mincome and UHS are politically dead right now but if we see anything at all like the Great Depression levels of economic deprivation + large numbers of unemployment then I'll think you see things change quite a bit. Once upon a time things like Social Security and Medicaid were viewed as impossible and Communist too you know. Of course so was a large standing professional army/military industrial complex and a federal income tax to pay for it too.
 
A bigger problem for job losses is the artificial minimum wage increases. Here in California it's now $10/hour, and some cities have raised it to $15/hour. These high minimum wage laws are doing more to kill unskilled labor jobs than automation.
Nope. Seattle has had $15/hr min. wage for longer than CA without issue. Other countries have even higher effective min. wages.

Raising the min. wage to $15/hr only requires raising prices 4-5% in most restaurants for instance. An extra cost of $.05 per dollar on the end price of a product isn't going to matter much to anyone. The extra $5/hr will though.

The cost is small because the labor to make the product is typically minimal in most restaurants or fast food places despite businesses constantly bitching about the cost of labor.
2HpRO3A.jpg

The cost of the raw food and the fixed costs add up to be the lion's share of the expense in making food.
 
But how do we implement this into the Amish community is the real question? Do they now use those MIT autonomous horses?

But the answer to the question is because computers care more for other human lives than I do and will always use due regard unless intentionally programmed to slaughter the occupants by Big Brother.
 
Just three?
  1. Computers don't have moods
  2. they're never "under the weather"
  3. they can calculate trajectories and the best course to avoid an accident million times faster than any human can, and not just swerve into the oncoming semi to avoid a much smaller accident
  4. they never get aggressive
  5. they don't retaliate and start brake checking because someone didn't get out of their way fast enough
  6. they'll always keep ample following distance
  7. they can judge precisely what speed is appropriate in any given conditions, making imposed speed limits obsolete
  8. computer controlled cars can communicate between each other, knowing the position and speed of every vehicle in it's proximity

1. Tell that to a 4 year old Gigabyte motherboard I have. It has had usb 3.0 driver issues for years. Somedays the drivers just seem to get uninstalled or "go bad". Can go months with nothing wrong and then I'm reinstalling drivers or just a reboot. As a rule I only use the rear usb 3.0 ports for external HDD data transfers of any serious size (and its not due to the case's front ports).
2. Viruses, trojans, malware... oh my. USB port for loading of music files or the kids latest movie?
3. Who takes priority? You? The semi? The pedestrian? Is the programming correct?
4. Define aggressive and again, who programmed it?
5. Until they get hacked they dont anyway.
6. Until programming gets corrupted or a sensor goes on the fritz.
7. Yes, I'm sure governments will love giving up this power to tax speeders etc..
8. Until they get hacked as you've opened up a huge security hole via wifi/BT/radio signals between cars.
 
But if cars drive themselves, how would we make use of "Texas exits" on the freeway?

Coming from the midwest, this was completely mind-boggling when I moved to Houston. Anytime there is a jam on the freeway, all these rutted exists start popping up as drivers cut across the grass to the feeder roads. Granted, you don't have feeder/frontage roads along freeways and interstates elsewhere (or at least no where near the amount).

Personally, I'm patiently waiting to welcome our automated driving overloads!
 
Problem I see with self driving cars is regular winter driving, snow covered roads (like more than half of a typical year) snow banks, ice/snow on the car etc. How will it handle these situations, will the sensors still be able to pickup what lane it's in? It seems any time you see scenarios where these are being tested it's down south on a sunny day with no snow or ice anywhere and a perfectly smooth pavement road with clearly marked lines. That is not a good example of typical driving conditions.
 
They'll use GPS I believe. They don't actually need to see the lines in the road. The sensors are for identifying people, other cars, etc.
 
They'll use GPS I believe. They don't actually need to see the lines in the road. The sensors are for identifying people, other cars, etc.

Isn't gps only accurate to about 15feet? That would make lane control impossible. There would need to be massive infrastructure changes to accommodate automated cars
 
It only has to know approximately where the road is. From there it can look for land marks, signs, etc. and work backwards from there. Centimeter or inch level precision isn't needed.
 
I don't know what is the connection between maps and computer controlled cars in your head. And I'm not sure I want to hear it. There is no correlation between the quality of maps in google and the ability of a computer program to drive a car.

Ok then, explain how exactly you are supposed to tell the computer where you want to go and how it finds its way without maps. I have no idea how you can't comprehend how that is rather critical.
 
Back
Top