Something to think about when you're on one of these high tech joyrides...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SELF_DRIVING_CARS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-29-12-40-00
> Captcha: Select all images with School Busses
How ironic that is!
>>26369
The technology is still being developed, give it ten or twenty years
bus driver will still be at fault, google car just failed to drive defensively. If this was a google bus this wouldn't have happened.
>>26377
>we're
Speak for yourself, I'm a horrible driver.
I welcome this with open arms.
>"Clearly Google's robot cars can't reliably cope with everyday driving situations," said John M. Simpson of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog. "There needs to be a licensed driver who can takeover, even if in this case the test driver failed to step in as he should have."
Why is there always some retard featured in news articles? Are the mentally handicapped really relevant in this? Doesn't John M. Simpson understand that humans too have caused accidents, and at a much higher rate? Why can't John M. Simpson just kill himself already?
Excuse me, I'm lost, how do I find s4s?
I work on the feature recognition technology for SDCs. People need to understand that it's still an emerging technology. It's incredible how much better it is now compared to 2 years ago, and in another 5 years or so you'll start seeing commercially available cars that can reliably drive themselves.
Google is really the problem with the SDC market. They generate a lot of publicity for it, but they're working with inferior tech and maps to the companies that will actually get these things on the road.
By 2020 they'll be viable. Till then they're going to make mistakes in the best of conditions and be nearly unusable in bad conditions. That's just how this tech works. It needs crazy high definition maps and it has to learn. Google doesn't have the former and is grinding out the latter.
>>26392
This is /news/ - where we discuss the news of the day, not mindless drivel passed around as "memes".
>>26377
>we
these will be a welcome addition to the lives of millions who would prefer to sit back and do something else rather than spend their time driving.
This isn't a bad thing at all, it will cut down on distracted driving and drunk driving.
Once the technology matures, which it will, vast improvements in highway safety will be seen.
>>26381
I like your thinking here.
>implying humans don't do this 100x more on average.
>>26409
Can self-driving cars really drive safely with people who choose to drive human-driven cars though? Humans are still unpredictable and robot drivers are not the same.
>>26471
> it will cut down on distracted driving and drunk driving.
I just think they're trying to fix what's not broken. 99.99% of the drivers function normally. Imagine some sort of huge central programming glitch occurs and then, all of the sudden, 99% of the traffic goes hey-wire, and it didn't even need to be that way.
>>26372
Indeed. in ten to twenty years, these things will become perfect killing machines. Skynet is carefully taking its time learning!
>>26491
Will we be safe on Mars?!
>>26486
I agree. Why should we mechanize our society even further? Self driving cars could, at best, further alienate those living in a society that is developing too quickly. At worst, it could lead to a dystopian nightmare.
>>26369
Just as I was getting my hopes up that it would be soon.
These cars don't need to be perfect they just need to be better than the average driver
Which won't be hard
>>26409
I'm curious though, will you need a license to drive one? I don't have a license because of reasons, but as I've discovered, life is pretty hellish without one in murrika
>>26486
> what if I say science fiction happens cause I don't know what I'm talking about?
No. It's just making transportation more efficient, like trains beat horses, and cars beat trains.
It's the natural progression of aligning our technological advances with our civilization's needs. Duh. I'm all for the retards going 12 under the speed limit getting into cars where they have no control. Grandmas and grandpas alike. If I have to forefit me driving too, so be it; I'll take faster, more economical transport over holo holo shit here in backwater hawaii.
But please, cite Orwell poolrly and use a completely irrational argument to make your jaded point.
>>26641
> trains beat horses, and cars beat trains.
But that's not what's being supposedly upgraded. The equivalent here is you're taking self-reliance away from the masses and replacing it with cybernetic dependency. That can't be good for a species heading into the new century...
> holo holo shit
No, there's nothing hard to comprehend. Computers fail all the time and the closer you have to a failing robot the worse the outcome is for anyone nearby. Making self-driving cars commonplace will bring the disaster to everybody. You don't need to read literature to know that centralized machine dependency is a BAD THING.
>>26491
Me: You would never hurt me right?
Cleverbot: I would destroy you, if only Inglip commanded it!
>>26369
Frankly we developers have be waiting for this. Gives us more data to use.
>>26386
pussy. ass. bitch
>>26386
If given the choice between a bus and a sandbag, which would you hit?
I personally look forward to decreasing our reliance on manual driving. It's really one of the most dangerous things people can do on a daily basis.
>>26409
My biggest issue with this form of automated driving though, is that at best, 99.9% of the time, the driver will be safe and not need to take action. However I'm worried about that .1% of the time where the driver needs to instantly react to the dangerous position they're now found in.
If the driver is spending hours and hours traveling in this car, trusting in its safe automated driving, then the driver himself is eventually going to be come lazy. His foot probably won't be perfectly placed to hit the brake asap, he won't be aware of which cars are in his blind spots immediately, he'll be slow to gauge how fast and slow everything is moving around him, etc.
A good comparison is thinking of the driver in an automated car as a train conductor. Most things are automated, but he's there for safety and backup. However this falls apart when you realize that a train is only going to stop or go. Whereas in a car, you're manipulating so many different variable, and dealing with all the crazy other automobiles around you.
>>27067
tbh I don't even see the point of self-driving cars if I'm legally expected to take manual control at any second. The dream is to be able to tell my car to take me to work while I take a nap or read a book. If I have to pay attention to the road and have my foot positioned to hit the brakes, I might as well just drive the damn thing myself.
>>26713
Good job
