How is it a lack of critical thinking? Did you not notice that multiple driverless car companies have pulled out of the market because of those two accidents--and many close ones? But they will still get here. I saw two Waymo driverless cars, with no one in the 'driver's seat', while I was travelling in California recently.
-
12
-
alien observer wrote:
All attempts to automate everything should fail as they do nothing to improve the level of responsibility for each person, especially such things that involve unpredictable occurances requiring the subtle detection abilities of the senses.
NO we should keep automating things. Have you ever had to do a long series of calculations? Now think about doing it by hand and the errors that can be made.
Antilock brakes are automated in a way. My daughter's car has lane warnings and also a device that tells when she is not watching the road (those are automations to me).
Automation is great for repetitive tasks to allow a person to do more creative and productive thingsPlanes have a HUGE amount of automation in them---part of what makes flying commercial so safe.
20 -
Baby, You Cant Drive My Car wrote:
Just think of all the incredibly common situations, like the airport drop off/pick up or a blizzard, where the official rules of the road go completely out the window and driverless cars become either useless or downright dangerous. Just like other areas of the tech sector, people have been making bigger and bigger promises to keep the investor money rolling in. All the doubters were cast as luddites or haters of tech geniuses, but has been clear to anyone with common sense that driverless cars won't work, at least not any time soon.
Waymo in Phoenix has done the airport already:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/14/waymo-launches-curbside-robotaxi-pickup-at-phoenix-airport/12 -
Driverless autos, lithium battery autos, U.S. is doing everything to avoid the inevitable. U.S. citizens do not like each other. Dislike of fellow U.S. citizens is the most logical reason for U.S. not having high speed rail connecting all U.S. cities, 1/2 million and large, population. U.S. needs to modernize the rail system.
12 -
driverless cars can be stopped by anyone stepping in front of them, I think Malcom Gladwell ended up literally running circles around a driverless car.
I think thieves would take great advantage of this.
31 -
Hoke Colburn wrote:
Good article.
Most people who propose ideas to put others out of work are usually too stupid to get it right.
Driverless cars? What could go wrong? Hahahaha....
21 -
Think Again wrote:
Hoke Colburn wrote:
Good article.
No, it's not a good article. It's actually a very stupid article.
It says that driverless cars will never happen because one person got killed by a driverless car, conveniently ignoring the fact that around 30,000 people get killed per year by cars driven by humans.
The person who wrote the article is clearly not capable of critical thinking.
Fake news. You’re wrong.
if you compare the number of human driven hours per year divided by the number of fatalities vs the number of autonomous driven hours per year divided by their respective fatalities, the failure rate is way worse. By a factor of 100.
self driving cars are way more dangerous and are no where near close to being “safe.”
self driving cars rely on two types of sensor systems to “see” the road: Lidar and Electro Optical. Both have limitations.
if you introduce even the slightest bit of atmospheric interference, such as snow, or rain, the sensors break down and are not able to produce accurate point clouds. (Notice how the only tests for self driving cars are done in pristine conditions in Arizona or California?)
not to mention the more complex a system is with software, the more points of failure. Has your computer ever froze or shut down unexpectedly? What makes you think the computers on board a self driving car - carrying human lives - is 100% crash proof?
41 -
All the data from Waymo in SF show that their driverless cars are in far few accidents per mile (or per hour) than the general population.
You think San Francisco is "pristine conditions" - have you ever been?
Yawn. bro. Yawn.
24 -
Moron detector wrote:
All the data from Waymo in SF show that their driverless cars are in far few accidents per mile (or per hour) than the general population.
You think San Francisco is "pristine conditions" - have you ever been?
Yawn. bro. Yawn.
Trusting the company that’s trying to sell you an $80,000 car. Yep. Super reliable source of data.
32 -
fisky wrote:
I envision in the distance future, dedicated driverless lanes will exist and driverless vehicles will merge into this lane bumper to bumper without slowing down. Timing would allow them to go through intersections without stopping, a bit like figure 8 racing. They won't be individually owned. They will be more like today's buses, taxis, Ubers, etc. You walk to a pickup point and tell the system where you want to go. Eventually, one of the driverless cars in the conga-line pulls over, picks you up, and merges back into the line. It will probably need to be elevated to avoid pedestrians and stupid drivers.
In this futuristic picture, I can envision us living in beehive cell like living units, right next to millions of other human beings
20 -
Hoke Colburn wrote:
Think Again wrote:
No, it's not a good article. It's actually a very stupid article.
It says that driverless cars will never happen because one person got killed by a driverless car, conveniently ignoring the fact that around 30,000 people get killed per year by cars driven by humans.
The person who wrote the article is clearly not capable of critical thinking.
Just those incidents greatly set back the concept for companies. We have gotten over the idea of humans making fatal mistakes. We will never get over machines making fatal mistakes.
Silly take. Never? We will get over it as soon as the first generation of kids grows up used to the idea. Jeebus.
01 -
The_Real_Bullet_Proof1 wrote:
Think Again wrote:
No, it's not a good article. It's actually a very stupid article.
It says that driverless cars will never happen because one person got killed by a driverless car, conveniently ignoring the fact that around 30,000 people get killed per year by cars driven by humans.
The person who wrote the article is clearly not capable of critical thinking.
Fake news. You’re wrong.
if you compare the number of human driven hours per year divided by the number of fatalities vs the number of autonomous driven hours per year divided by their respective fatalities, the failure rate is way worse. By a factor of 100.
self driving cars are way more dangerous and are no where near close to being “safe.”
self driving cars rely on two types of sensor systems to “see” the road: Lidar and Electro Optical. Both have limitations.
if you introduce even the slightest bit of atmospheric interference, such as snow, or rain, the sensors break down and are not able to produce accurate point clouds. (Notice how the only tests for self driving cars are done in pristine conditions in Arizona or California?)
not to mention the more complex a system is with software, the more points of failure. Has your computer ever froze or shut down unexpectedly? What makes you think the computers on board a self driving car - carrying human lives - is 100% crash proof?
Another fool, just like the people who are focused on what AI can't do "right this minute". I see idiots DAILY, doing their makeup, texting, tailgating, swerving in and out of their lanes, speeding, etc. I e seen people reading books and newspapers, not to mention all the people out there driving drunk and stoned. People arguing, on and on. As soon as some of the more challenging kinks are ironed out (and it won't be long) I'd take driverless cars all day long o er actual f***ing idiot humans. You shortsighted simpletons would be funny if you weren't holding the rest of us back so badly. Get back to us when your IQ exceeds 2 digits.
01 -
Its an issue of complexity / chaotic systems. The technology is well tested in geofenced areas were the car is essentially augmenting a model of the area with real time sensory data. But take away that expensive digital model of an area and there's simply too many unpredictable factors, impromptu road conditions and hazards happen all the time and our current approach to self driving cars simply isn't able to handle it. True autonomous vehicles remain science fiction, probably possible and eventually will happen but who knows the time frame.
11 -
The_Real_Bullet_Proof1 wrote:
Think Again wrote:
No, it's not a good article. It's actually a very stupid article.
It says that driverless cars will never happen because one person got killed by a driverless car, conveniently ignoring the fact that around 30,000 people get killed per year by cars driven by humans.
The person who wrote the article is clearly not capable of critical thinking.
Fake news. You’re wrong.
if you compare the number of human driven hours per year divided by the number of fatalities vs the number of autonomous driven hours per year divided by their respective fatalities, the failure rate is way worse. By a factor of 100.
self driving cars are way more dangerous and are no where near close to being “safe.”
self driving cars rely on two types of sensor systems to “see” the road: Lidar and Electro Optical. Both have limitations.
if you introduce even the slightest bit of atmospheric interference, such as snow, or rain, the sensors break down and are not able to produce accurate point clouds. (Notice how the only tests for self driving cars are done in pristine conditions in Arizona or California?)
not to mention the more complex a system is with software, the more points of failure. Has your computer ever froze or shut down unexpectedly? What makes you think the computers on board a self driving car - carrying human lives - is 100% crash proof?
Buddy, you don’t even wanna hear about the points of failure in this thing we call “humans.”
Self driving cars went from total failures to working full time in 5 years. The trend is clear.
Also, nothing is 100% crash proof. Do you refuse to get on an airplane?
02 -
#35
This post was removed.
-
tEsLa wrote:
Its an issue of complexity / chaotic systems. The technology is well tested in geofenced areas were the car is essentially augmenting a model of the area with real time sensory data. But take away that expensive digital model of an area and there's simply too many unpredictable factors, impromptu road conditions and hazards happen all the time and our current approach to self driving cars simply isn't able to handle it. True autonomous vehicles remain science fiction, probably possible and eventually will happen but who knows the time frame.
People who have programmed know this. You can't succeed unless
A) everything your program interacts with is nailed down
B) your program itself isn't too hairy
A because you can't tell your program in advance how to handle an unexpected thing. How can you? It is by definition something you haven't thought of.
B because the more decision trees you give your machine, the more bad decisions it can make. Unintended consequences.
If you try to beat A by getting fancy with lots of code, you will get tangled up in an unpredictable mess10 -
Hoke Colburn wrote:
Good article.
I'm not getting in a driverless car until they can get automatic toilets to flush every time.
10 -
Driverless autos, lithium battery autos ... wrote:
Driverless autos, lithium battery autos, U.S. is doing everything to avoid the inevitable. U.S. citizens do not like each other. Dislike of fellow U.S. citizens is the most logical reason for U.S. not having high speed rail connecting all U.S. cities, 1/2 million and large, population. U.S. needs to modernize the rail system.
Democrats live in cities. Americans don't want connected to public transport because that allows Democrats access to burn, loot, murder, and all the Americans have to relocate to get farther away from the Democrats again. "U.S citizenship" doesn't mean much, Democrats choose illegal invaders over other "U.S. citizens" who are Democrats in every policy, every funding choice they make, 24/7/365.
20 -
The_Real_Bullet_Proof1 wrote:
Moron detector wrote:
All the data from Waymo in SF show that their driverless cars are in far few accidents per mile (or per hour) than the general population.
You think San Francisco is "pristine conditions" - have you ever been?
Yawn. bro. Yawn.
Trusting the company that’s trying to sell you an $80,000 car. Yep. Super reliable source of data.
Do you have anything to dispute their data. Waymo had 150 "incidents" in 2 years (with no assignment of blame - a lot were driverless cars being rear-ended)
Cruise seemed to have sucked. Waymo is doing very well.
You are already stuck in the past. Come to SF - try out Waymo!
02 -
Urban youth destroyed a driverless car in San Francisco.
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.