Would you trust a driverless car?
not a single accident yet so ya.
>>52220195
only if i at least participated in the making of the algorithm
i fucking hate programs that arent made by myself. i even do captchas wrong in purpose to fuck up google's ai training to the extent that i can. badass i know.
>>52220195
Someday, sure. I'll wait another 20 years or so until they're fairly common and see how they're doing then. They'd be great for barhopping or commuting.
>>52220337
Nice Autism duuuude
>>52220195
Well , considering most accidents happen because of retarded drivers , I probably would if I had a chance to look at the code behind it , perhaps add a few lines of my own.
>>52220228
there's been minor accidents, but not showing the car was at fault
>>52220195
Yes, I absolutely hate driving.
>>52220388
fuck you man, do you have an idea the struggle i go through having to use linux arch, android, all that shit, and even 4chan, with my mindset?
>>52220195
I don't even trust current drivers, why would I trust a driverless one?
>>52220357
>20 years
Google is in the process right now of opening up a car company dedicated towards a driverless taxi service. It'll be opened sometime this year and will focus on college campuses and other various places.
By 2020 driverless cars will be in selected cities and the surrounding areas.
>>52220441
Because most driving accidents, like most problems in computing, are user error.
>>52220427
Why don't you write your own OS and make your own internet then if it bothers you that much?
>>52220195
Fuck yes and fuck driving.
Driving is nothing more than stop and go traffic with assholes driving on my tail. I can't till the day where I no longer have to own a car, but rather order one to show up via smartphone and have it take me places everyday.
>no car insurance
>no worrying about accidents
>no stress of driving
>no cost for fuel
I've been ready years ago.
>>52220462
Google's current driverless cars haven't even broken 30mph yet, it's still quite a ways off before they're common everywhere. Laws will also have to be rewritten since they're not exactly legal in most states. I stand by my 20 year estimate before they're ubiquitous.
>>52220473
too busy lurking /g/
>>52220511
>no cost for fuel
well...
>>52220511
I'll be fine with this scenario as long as I'm still allowed to ride motorcycles for fun.
>>52220462
>2020
It might even be sooner than that. 5 years ago when Google began their project people said it would take at least another 15 years before we'd even see it on public roads. Fast forward 5 years and it's already on roads and about to be a service within a years time.
I think by 2018 we're gonna see it within a few select liberal cities, possibly San Francisco and Seattle.
>>52220195
Yes, but unfortunately want some sort of manual control if needed.
And I want a drifting function to save gas
>>52220512
Google is the biggest lobbying group in America, they're gonna convince a few states to allow them for full street legal access.
Somewhere along the line, a programmer had to make an ethical decision. The car predicts it is going to be in an accident in the next three seconds. There is no reasonable means to avoid damage. The car can swerve off of a bridge, killing the driver and its own inhabitants, crash into another car, possibly killing them as well.
Most rationally thinking people would prefer that their lives be considered before anyone else's. If you are not the driver, however, do you get to make that call?
>>52220642
nice meme but the reaction when crashing into another car or into a wall is most likely the same ie either full braking in order to crash as slowly as possible or dodging to a safer route
people are gonna fuck on the freeway when this happens.
prostitution will flourish in this new system driving to their clients house, drive around the block and bang, drop him off and the car will take her to the next client. It'll be like ordering pizza except pussy. Imagine Tinder except people pay using Bitcoin so it can't be tracked or traced. Since prostitution will probably never be fully legalized in bible land America people will find a way around it.
>>52220727
>except people pay using Bitcoin
hokay there
>>52220741
Doesn't Facebook allow for phone-to-phone transactions now?
>>52220540
I don't get how motorcycles are allowed to exist, but sports cars to be street legal have to be weighed down with all kinds of unnecessary crap.
I hope the driverless car thing results in a world where most current 'car' regulations only apply to driverless cars with cars built without self driving systems become a less regulated market for enthusiasts.
>>52220783
>I hope the driverless car thing results in a world where most current 'car' regulations only apply to driverless cars with cars built without self driving systems become a less regulated market for enthusiasts.
I'd be okay with this but I know that the way it will work out will result in self driving systems being hyper regulated and have all sorts of licensing, training, and other governmental fees associated with it so that only the wealthy would be able to afford self-driving automobiles for enthusiast purposes...
>>52220195
if every other car on the road was also driverless
>>52220886
I think for the general publish self driving vehicles will turn them into something not worth being an enthusiast of.
My only real concern is that in the future lots of roads will be off limits to anything that isn't fully self driving.
>>52220195
>do you trunst drones?
>>52220393puts("Hi, mom!");
I would actually trust driverless car more than cars with drivers.
>>52220952
>Self driving vehicles only beyond this point, all other vehicles must exit the freeway.
I can see it now.
>>52221002
did he died??
>>52221020
yes
Not a chance in hell ever, I don't want the cops to have complete control over my car, they're bad enough as is.
>>52221053
Yeah that's one of the biggest concerns is governments using corporate services to quite literally control your every move.
>>52220410
>there's been minor accidents, but not showing the car was at fault
machine learning =/= artificial intelligence
these cars programmed by training them against data using statistics, these cars cannot make intelligent human like decisions, they can only react on data they will likely encounter
>>52221002
The fuck is this
>>52221002
Dat fucking cardio
>>52220195
As long as the code is open source. Otherwise you just added yet another tracking device to your person
>>52221082
Looks like hue hue police chasing some drug lord or fugitive.
Definitely.
Driverless cars are going to make the road much safer. I'm sure there will be a few accidents and maybe even hacks that lead to accidents but compared to human error I think even these scenarios will be trivial by comparison.
I don't know if I'll ever have one though; as I'm a poorfag who didn't even go to college and has no prospects.
Musk said Tesla's will be autonomous in 2 years.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/21/elon-musk-interview/
My plan is to buy a Model 3 Tesla in 2017 and wait for the automation patch.
The $35k seems more than fair to pay.
>>52221082
That is how cops treat criminals in the 3rd world. There were no BLM protests afterwards either.
>>52220195
seems like fallout where there's high tech stuff but the clothing and car style as well as building style is from the 70s
>>52221120
This.
>>52221120
yes it will reduce accidents overall. But the reason that isn't necessarily better is that it was mostly people that deserved to die for being dumbfucks on the road. With this, even the best driver in the world is purely in the hands of a machine.
>>52221122
I have such a hardon for Elon Musk. Everything that dude does with his company is fucking mind blowing. He's the Henry Ford of the 21st century born to transform the way we see the future.
>>52220642
I don't think that's a realistic scenario. Any sufficiently developed system; like What Google, Tesla and probably even Apple are working on would be able to prevent that scenario in the first place. If a car is equipped with the sensors to interpret surroundings and the software is adequately programemd to react (which it sure as shit will be by the time it reaches the market), I don't see a situation like that occurring.
Maybe a retarded kid rides out in front of the car on his bike, the software, not limited by human reflexes should be able to effectively dodge said retarded kid or brake, right?
>>52220928
Why? Your car would be smart enough to compensate for morons around you; that's kind of the point.
>>52221115
>>52221128
Serves him right for stealing cars.
>>52221239
I think considering the limitations of humans in general such as eyesight, reflexes, vulerabilities to illnesses, a sufficiently developed software system would outperform even the best driver.
>>52221122
I'm really anxious to see what they pull off with the Model 3. I'm hoping for something that looks and performs like a Golf GTI with at least 200 mile range and supercharger compatibility for a mid 30s price tag.
I'm worried they'll fuck it up like what's happened with the other 'affordable' electrics and make something that either only works in town, or that looks like crap like BMW's i3.
>>52220427
>MUH ARCH STRUGGLE
lmao dude shut up
>>52220195
Much more than a human, yes.
>>52220337
>i even do captchas wrong in purpose to fuck up google's ai training
Dude Google just called, because of you and the 50 captcha you typed wrong, they're going bankrupt.
i don't even trust automatic transmission.
>>52220512
Because of the money they would make, any state would suck Google's dick to be the one with their cars.
You can trust the american politician corruption on that one.
>>52220393
Fuck off
>>52220195
Of course moreover when they already drive better than I do. I don't particularly dislike driving, but I hate how people drive in my shitty country and I just hate traffic jams and general waiting. Fuck that, I'd rather be installing gentoo on the car than to deal with all that shit.
>>52220727
Bitcoin is the most traceable form of currency
>>52220337
>>52220393
I think it's best to leave the development of what is perhaps the most important safety critical code of all time to qualified engineers and scientists, not useless NEETs.
>>52221799
Traceable transactions, not traceable identities.
>>52220511
Dude driving in America is fucking heaven
Big ass roads, speed limits everywhere, automatic transmission, parking spots that basically fit 2 cars
If you find driving in America stressful try driving on narrow ass German roads that were designed for a single horse carriage but are now filled with 2 car lanes, bicycles and parked cars or on the Autobahn where every second you linger too long in the left lane increases your chances of being tailgated/actually hit by a BMW SUV
>pedestrian jumps in front of the car
>get arrested for life
T-thanks.
i'm gonna jerk off in those cars while going 60.
>>52222008
What are you getting at? That could happen right now. A driver less car would prevent that exact scenario.
>>52222088
>A driver less car would prevent that exact scenario
>driver abruptly brakes/evades the suicide man
>kills me in the process
>>52222111
Here we fucking go.
>>52222111
Imagine a world someday where this is so much data on every given person and situation that most if not all accidents can be averted based upon predictions. If someone were to wear a smartwatch or some sort of eye wear gadget and over time collects information upon that person, and knows they're unstable in terms of balance, direction and focus... perhaps that data will be fed into the system and all vehicles will be on high alert doing extra calculations to avoid such a disaster.
Entire simulations will be created in a millisecond based upon that single guy in that particular part of town, every possible scenario recalculating itself and becoming smarter by the second. Cars will subtly change pace and even change lanes ahead of time, possibly even minutes before the guy is even near the street.
I don't think people are even prepared to imagine how interconnected our world will be in the next 10 years.
>>52222203
>Cars will subtly change pace and even change lanes ahead of time, possibly even minutes before the guy is even near the street.
>two guys on each side of the street
>cars just crash themselves trying to avoid them
Perfect murder.
>>52222203
ffffuuuuccckkk
i'm not sure if i'm ready for a world like that
>>52222233
watch Minority Report
>>52222203
Idk why but that makes me sad
I'm only 25 and I was always on the edge of technology but in times like these I wish back my VHS and my landline phone ;-;
>>52222383
but it's actually a very good movie anon :(
>>52222203
Great leaps in computing power and fully embracing the botnet is needed for these things. I wouldn't really dislike it if it prevented innocents from being killed.
not even fucking
>>52221002
>>52221030
Why didn't they just shoot him in the hand or something?
>>52220337
Holy fuck I never call people people autistic but Jesus Christ nigguh you have the autisms. All of them
Yes. It's absolutely insane that practically every other form of transportation except the car is basically driverless/automated at this point, and the car is the most dangerous of them all because of humans.
No, because I doubt an algorithm can decide whether it should prioritise saving the passengers or the pedestrians in a tricky situation.
They will probably be made to prioritise one over the other, so would you want to be in a car which prioritises saving a group of pedestrians over your life or would you want to be a pedestrian knowing that such cars prioritise saving the passengers?
>>52222620
>prioritise one over the other
They will see the people from 30mts away and start braking accordingly, don't be a fucktard, worst case scenario it will just hit the brakes and if it can't avoid it it will hit it, just like real humans would do.
>>52222620
They dont see "people", they just see obstacles, if the travel path of said obstacle will obstruct your path, it will brake in time, they won't be driving at high speeds unless they are on special roads designed for that. Sensors workint 100% on the road are actually better than people who get distracted by their phone and shit.
>>52222620
If all cars are driverless this situation never arises.
We're talking the possibility of LITERALLY zero road accidents per year.
Of course there will always be some "i love le driving and le roar of the engine under my foot" fuck to ruin it.
>>52222620
Also I wouldn't like driverless cars because I like driving and driving keeps my reflexes im shape.
Technology sometimes makes you dumber by making things easier for you at the detriment of your abilities.
>>52222724
Well I'm sorry to disappoint you but in the future you're going to have to save lives and use driverless cars :')
>>52222724
You could be playing grand turismo while the car drives itself anon
>>52222724
*to the detriment
Phone keyboard..
>>52222688
I can't find the video, but there is a demonstration of a driverless car done with some Japanese guy that can distinguish people from normal obstacles. It's actually important to distinguish people, because most obstacles do not move, but people are obstacles who do (erratically, too) so you want to predict that. Nevertheless, your point still stands that the car will always be entirely focused on the road to a much greater degree of scrutiny than a human could ever achieve, so even if some algorithm has to choose, in the worst case it can just treat a person like a simple obstacle and avoid that much better than a human could.
For a board that pisses and screams about software being free as in freedom, open source shit and decrying NSA back doors and shit, you're awfully keen to have something as statist and restrictive as self driving cars .
>>52222765
Yes that's the only reason I still do some occasional gaming because I noticed it improved my reaction speed when I'm driving. Two years since I got my license and no accident or even a small dent yet. I blame it on playing RTS games a lot, where micro and macro train your brain for real life tasks, I think.
depends on what you mean by trust.
>trust them to not kill me and get me to my destination quickly and safely
yes, absolutely
>trust them to be secure and respect my privacy
not a chance
>>52222839
>Two years since I got my license and no accident or even a small dent yet. I blame it on playing RTS games a lot, where micro and macro train your brain for real life tasks, I think.
No, it's called "Paying the fuck attention to the road" something people stopped doing in droves once cellphones and dash video players came out.
>>52222829
This is what happens when humanity crams 7.3 BILLION people on a finite planet. Everything has to be super efficient or else it will become planet India, and fucking shit hole.
>>52222829
Why do luddites browse technology boards?
>>52221080
How can you judge a computer in a situation morally ambiguous even for humans?
>>52221842
>not useless NEETs
But I've completed this course. Have you completed it? No, so shut up.
https://www.udacity.com/course/artificial-intelligence-for-robotics--cs373
>>52222855
Yeah well I never take my eyes off the road no matter what. Let the phone ring or I could set it on car mode and use voice commands.
>>52222880
>I'm sorry, you've already driven your allotted 8000 miles this year. Driving more will require a $500 tax fee.
>this destination is outside your approved travel area, please pick another
>etc
>etc
If cops would actually start ticketing the people who really do cause accidents like those driving 15 under or those fucking around with their phones all the time instead of only focusing on people going ten over on an empty highway.
>>52222862
We're not even close to overpopulating the planet to the extent you're claiming.
>>52222920
Congratulation, you're a better driver than 70% of the other fucks on the road.
>>52220195
Would you trust a pakistani immigrant who can't speak English and who spent the first 30 years of his life riding mules to drive you home at night?
>>52221988
>not being able to outrun some German 155mph shitbox
Try again
>>52222862
A quick google shows that a number of scientists think Earth could support up to 10 billion people. If we have more agricultural/yield improvements (akin to the Borlaug's Dwarf wheat), I imagine we could support more.
If our ability to exploit arable land is effectively infinite (in other words if we can keep finding ways to dramatically increase yield capacity and whatnot), then the question gets more interesting in my opinion. Let's imagine that everyone in the world wants to live in a city-like environment. Who can blame them? Try ordering a very specific cuisine at 4am on a Tuesday in New York City and then try the same thing in Lemon, South Dakota (or North Dakota, it's not clear because it's on the border and so few people fucking care that it's ambiguous when you get there whether you're north of the border or south).
Anyway, the highest population density is to be found in Manila, in the Philippines. Their population per square mile is a pretty shocking 111,000 per square mile (or ~43,000 per square kilometer). There's (apparently) about 70 million square kilometers of habitable land on Earth (living on the ocean is not that complicated an achievement in the scenario I described where we've rendered our carrying capacity infinite, but I'm just going to spare us the ocean because blue is a pretty color).
If we have 70 million square kilometers and we're willing to pack in about as densely as we do in Manila, then we could fit 3,010,000,000,000 people on this planet (that's just over 3 quadrillion people if I've counted commas correctly).
That's a ridiculous thought, because it'd be a lot easier to section off some land for farming and other shit, but even if we reserve half of the most fertile, arable land for farming and a huge chunk for other shit that still leaves us with enough space for up to 1 quadrillion people.
Point being, we could pack in quite a bit more tightly on this planet before we can even approach calling ourselves "crammed".
I don't even trust a drivered car unless I'm the one drivering it
>>52220511
The last time I drove a car were in my teen years, I take the bus everywhere nowadays.
Fuck no, but I'd trust it overall on the larger scale. Like I'd accept that there would be less accidents and all... but for me personally I'd be distrustful. How would a robot decide who lives or dies if it has to choose between me and a group of people?
>>52223439
Are you from the U.S?
>>52220195
If it respects my freedom then yes.
>>52222829
>statist and restrictive as self driving cars .
Are you just throwing buzzwords out randomly? Why do idiots like you think that "self driving car" means "car with no manual controls" ?
>>52220195
Yes because the steering wheel is always in front of me.
>>52223604
Because that's literally how they're all being designed save ones based on an existing car?
>>52223680
>What is a Tesla
>>52223687
>based off an existing design.
>>52223767
Tesla vehicles are being designed with self driving capabilities in mind. Tesla is working on new vehicles that will have both manual and automatic features.
P.S. All vehicles are based off an existing car.
>>52223464
Not him, but I am in the U.S. and have not driven since the age of 17. I live in a city where it is difficult not to, but have managed to get a decent job which is accessible by light rail and bus.
The feds are making it a law to require all driverless vehicles to have a steering wheel and all the necessary gear to fully drive manually in case of an emergency.
>>52221080
Humans can't make intelligent human-like decisions.
>>52222203
https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg
I'm totally ready. The cars are already more observant than human drivers, but imagine if they were also all communicating. A car 20 miles up the road and inform everyone around that a tornado touched down way before any radio broadcast can report it.
>>52224160
There's not enough detail in that to be a legitimate statement. Care to expand?
>>52222829
There's no reason the cars can't run free software.
And in actuality, their security will be enhanced with a fully free boot process also.
>>52224193
You ever seen a car accident caused by a human acting perfectly smart?
If humans made intelligent 'human-like' decisions, there wouldn't be car accidents at all.
Fuck yeah I would
>telling the NSA literally where you are at all times
Thanks but no thanks. Unless I can make sure that the car's software is 100% FOSS, that it only connects to FOSS mapping services and that, most importantly, it doesn't log and sends to a 3rd party any data without my explicit consent, I won't be touching those with a 3 parsec stick.
>>52224260
>drive your own car instead
>get in accident
>telling NSA literally which hospital you are in
>all the driverless cars told the NSA you were out driving a car yourself anyway
>police/NSA/FBI wants to get you
>just makes it so that when you enter your car it locks itself and drives to the nearest police station
>police/NSA/FBI wants to kill you
>just makes it so that the car drives itself into a wall when you get on it
10/10
>>52220195
There are so many positives about selfdriving cars
>Higher speed limits due to quicker thinking at the very least on highways
>Able to use car while drunk
>Able to read/work/video chat/jackoff
>Less accidents caused by stupid fucking idiots
>>52224290
>hospital
>he fell for the meme
I seriously that this is bait.
Hospitals are literally the worst thing that happened in mankind on the last 3 millenia.
>>52224294
If the NSA wants you dead a manual driven car isn't going to save you.
>>52224303
How do you know, do you work for them?
>>52224300
>>Higher speed limits due to quicker thinking at the very least on highways
>>Less accidents caused by stupid fucking idiots
There was a state that removed speed limits on their highways and freeways a few years ago. Accidents all but disappeared and congestion was greatly relieved. Until the feds told them to put the speed limits back or kiss their funding goodbye.
>>52224260
>I"m worried somewhere in the trillions of files the NSA is going to notice me being a fatshit and going to fastfood every day.
>>52224294
>police/NSA/FBI wants to get you.
>For some reason they can't find where I live or work
Of cause you don't work but you get the idea.
>>52224393
Spoken like a true shill. Can you post your NSA badge with a timestamp?
>>52224393
If you're a protester and happen to be against the establishment they will use this technology to stop you.
>>52224409
My house has a 4T magnet on it to wipe all of my data once shit hits the fan. My car doesn't.
We already trust driverless GPUs
>>52224393
>Oops, you're against the governent?
>remember the time you illegaly downloaded a copyrighted file in 2001?
>Jailed for life
>>52220195
>buildings that big
>central part of building gets no natural light, feels likes a claustrophobic prison
>every futuristic cityscape picture has these
Every time.
So sad how politicians aren't even discussing technology in their debates, just shows you how all the old fuck baby boomers are the reason why this shit still goes on. Presidential candidates can't even talk about encryption with a straight face because they don't even know what it is. Let alone the concept of privacy or bulk collection.
>>52224421
>If you're a protester and happen to be against the establishment
Browsing /pol/ doesn't make you a threat.
>>52224455
>>central part of building gets no natural light, feels likes a claustrophobic prison
But that's exactly how it is.
>>52224438
So why hasn't that already happened?
>>52221115
>hue hue police
HOLY FUCK LOL
Anyways, I think it'll take a while to get used to. I think geohot has the best chance of creating an accessible system that is relatively cheap and safe.
>become leader of occupy movement 2.0
>get in driverless car to protest zone
>government hacks it and crashes it into a brick wall
>they blame in on anonymous ISIS terrorist neckbeard hackers
>everyone believes it.
>>52224485
Because you are living like a good sheep.
The government will arrest you at any time they want, for no reason at all, unless you follow the line.
I know that because I've spent 24 weeks in jail for nothing, while they (tried) to get my data. Fortunately, I had a killswitch to wipe all of my HDDs. Fuckers will never know about the 24TB of anime I had in there.
>>52220472
>driver errors
you couldn't even deliver a joke right anon
>>52224502
>Have regular car
>engine malfunctions and you burn alive
>Dodgy as fuck circumstances
>media look other way
The government is so powerless against people driving their own cars.
>>52224536
>The government is so powerless against people driving their own cars.
Which probably explains why they want driverless cars to begin with. More power and control for them.
Someetimes I wonder if Google is just one giant CIA project.
>>52224551
>Completely missing my point
Intentional or do you really not remembering Michael Hastings?
>>52224551
They're not going to be sold to the public from the 'security' issues.
Infact, having them remote controlled isn't even going to be publicly known.
How they're going to be sold is by statistics. Or rather, how many lives they'll save.
But presented in emotional format; pictures of dead children, car crashes, and then 'This could have been prevented, don't manually drive' with crying children saying how their mom was killed by a human driver.
Autonomous cars connect to Internet = hacker playday
Not in a getaway, or getting someone to the hospital in a hurry.
>>52221241
>Elon Musk
nigger is a real life Tony Stark
>>52224208
Sure but why would they? Wherever there is money to be made corporations will follow. When you buy that self driving car you become that corporations puppet driving and alpha testing their product while you pay them and the government to do so
Self driving cars are a step back in technology
>>52222233
nice numbers
>>52224536
>engine malfunctions and you burn alive
that rarely happens
>>52225020
Self driving cars are the future, not the past dude.
When you buy a self driving car you get the self driving car. How much it can be controlled is up to the manufacturer.
Generally, any self driving car not released with free software is a step backwards in self-driving car tech but not in driving tech in general.
Proprietary car software has always been awful, and now it's coming to control systems too.
Setting down a precedent for actually secure cars is where we need to go, not going 'ooga booga car dangerous'.
Backdoors will be found and abused. Perfect security is more or less impossible, but purposeful insecurity is even worse.
>>52220337
Don't bully nenet. Bad anon. She's been drawing you pretty pictures for days now.
>>52224726
This. If they can gain physical access to your car already, they can control literally any part of it through the OBD2 port in cars made in the last year or two.
>>52220195
More than I trust humans, machines > stupid glorified apes
>>52224219
material failure
>>52222203
>spewing shit that requires computational power of another century
>says 10 years
>underage /g/ users lapping it up
i can't wait for christmas break to be over
>>52221684
ok noob
>>52221842
Have you installed linux arch? No, so shut up.
>>52221080
In the end this will not matter. It's scary, for someone with a basic grasp of how computers work, to think that the system will have no idea what to do if it were to find a situation it doesn't expect, whereas we can adapt to anything.
But as I said, in the end when a lot of people is using a driverless car and people sees that they just never crash, or there are statistics of a few crashes but everyone they know that uses it is okay, they will lose fear, simple as that.
>>52225123
>machines > stupid glorified apes
typical edgy nerd that isn't even smart
>>52227095
>In the end this will not matter. It's scary to think that the system will have no idea what to do if it were to find a situation it doesn't expect
Yeah that's totally how artificial intelligence works buddy
>>52224455
>central part of building gets no natural light
You mean like every multing that is more than 3 rooms wide?
>>52229029
>more than 2 rooms wide
rather
>>52221243
This. Also, the system probably uses GPS, which could scan for the dangerous situation from far away
>>52221122
Bad idea kid. They will be cheaper in 2020 than in 2017 and there's go guarantee that your 2017 model will have all the sensors.
>>52221243
There was an interesting bit of footage that Google had recorded from one of their self driving cars where someone stepped blindly out from in front of a van onto the road. The car couldn't brake in time, no chance whatsoever. But the car knew its surrounding so just made a quick left turn and went around the guy, who would be dead if it wasn't a self-driving car. Amazing stuff.
>>52229208
There was also that tesla video where he driver was distracted for a moment by something to his left, when at the same time a retarded driver pulled out in front of him on his right. I think the tesla was doing 80km or something. Car immediately detected the car pulling out and began braking, and didn't hit him. Driver was sure if not for that there would have been a serious accident.
I trust that it would drive safely. But I dont trust it to reach every destination. Outdated maps and temporary obstacles are a bitch.
>>52220195
I would only trust if if there was absolute certainty that no outside party, no matter how "legitimate", could take over control of it remotely.
>>52229009
except it is homie
however "smart" it is, it has a limited set of possible events and choices, and situations it's trained for.
>>52230771
that aint gonna happen
using a car to escape the cops will be history unless some l33t h4xor figures out a way to hack them
>>52230874
It was already history when they kept getting helicopters with thermal cameras.
But yeah, you're correct.
>>52230874
If the cops can do it then the potential for criminals to do it exists as well. I'll take freedom over security in that case, until it becomes illegal to do otherwise I guess.
>>52231021
What if it turns out it's 100x safer to drive a self driving car than a manual one?
Who cares if there's a tiny change of a criminal taking over the car. Why take that over a much higher chance of you crashing into another car and burning alive?
>>52231242
because that's just bullshit logic, i dont care if its objectively safer, i want control so i can keep me safe myself
>>52231242
I'd rather keep my life in my own hands as much as possible than rely on the chance that some skiddie won't decide to steer me into a wall at full speed for the lulz.
>>52231316
>i want control so i can keep me safe myself
Why? What's important about keeping yourself "safe" yourself? Why isn't your goal to be as safe as possible?
>>52231349
>Why isn't your goal to be as safe as possible?
If that was your goal you wouldn't get into a car in the first place.
nigga I don't even trust my own Hello World code
>>52231377
I use a car because the benefits are worth the risk. But I'll certainly do what's reasonable to reduce the risk of being killed in an accident without reducing the benefits much.
>>52231413
Well, that's your outlook on it. My goal is not to be as safe as possible, and as I said before if it came down to trading freedom for security, I would keep my old car as long as possible and if it no longer became possible I would eschew driving altogether and find other ways to get around.
>>52231459
>if it no longer became possible I would eschew driving altogether and find other ways to get around.
BWAAAHAHAHA. Good luck with that anon.
>>52231544
Right now I work from home and live in an area where most stores I'd need on a regular basis are within walking distance and others are within biking distance. So if that change were to happen tomorrow I'd manage, though obviously it'd suck a bit more this time of year.
>>52220195
Sure, I already use AMD GPUs
>>52230843
AIs can make decisions, they don't just pick them from already written lists
What you call "decision" in this case is just picking a path or reacting quickly to danger, which isn't hard at all to do
And future AIs will be able to add decisions to their possible choices just like we do
http://www.techspot.com/news/63339-general-motors-invests-500-million-lyft-part-deal.html
More proof that this reality is coming sooner than most people think.
