>muh self driving car is safe from driver errors
>muh maximum safety
>muh obsolecense of human element
>suddenly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9T6LkNm-5w
>google takes video down
>also takes first mirror down
>can't eternally stop the reuploads
>"w-we updated the softwares, can we still be the future pls?"
Are self-driving cars over before they even became a thing?
Pic unrelated.
>>14616182
>1 (one) unprogrammed identification in regards to a mini bus reversing in a parking lot
>the end as we know it
I know you're scared as a carfag to see robotics taking over, but this is still development and testing stage. It will be over sooner than you think. Nice knowing you autists while you all lasted.
Why are you writing this like its a technology that has been completed?
Self-driving cars will be a fuckton more safe than driving a "normal" car, mark my word
>still extremely early prototype iteration has one fender bender
>>14616182
THST WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED IF ALL CARS WERE SELF DRIVING AND 5 MPH FAST.
MUH FUTURE
MUH TESTING STAGE
Are people really saying human beings would be better drivers than a computer? They already beat us at everything else, and human errorr is the number one cause of accidents
>>14616182
The driver, whom could assume total control of the vehicle at at point by just taking the wheel and using his foot on either pedal also misjudged the bus yielding, too.
The software made a bad call (Assuming the bus would yield), the driver made a bad call (assuming the bus would yield), and the bus driver made a bad call (Assuming the google vehicle would yield).
Nobody made a good call, except Google in accepting responsibility for the software making a bad call, and adding in a weight to decisions like this that says: "Bus Drivers are assholes" basically.
Also, the video keeps getting taken down because it's part of an on-going investigation by many parties to study this incident, and the inane comments of internet viewers may weight decisions if they need focus groups/3rd parties to give their opinion on the incident.
strong google shills itt
>>14616377
>Are people really saying human beings would be better drivers than a computer
Yes.
Sure, a computer could react far faster and far more reliably to any given programmed situation, but humans have the advantage of judgement. If somebody walks out 20m in front of a self driving car doing 50mph its only response is to brake which will result in one dead retard, a human can swerve and avoid the retard.
>>14616409
The bus had right of way.
>>14616182
Imagine how fucked up the driver of that tank was when that thing landed? Everything inside there is jagged and metal, I hope he had a helmet on.
>>14616447
This. No matter how advanced computers get, they'll never be able to figure out the highly complex maneuver known as "swerving"
>>14616274
And its only victim was a bunch of losers using public transportation anyways. Nothing of value was lost. I'm sure society can spare a few hobos and teen moms.
Driver less car will happen but it'll pretty much be rquired to have an attentive human at the wheel just in case. The whole "I CANT WAIT TO SLEEP DURING MY COMMUTE" won't happen. Having a driver just in case also keeps the blame to the human and not the car so you can't sue google
>>14616409
>Also, the video keeps getting taken down because it's part of an on-going investigation by many parties to study this incident, and the inane comments of internet viewers may weight decisions if they need focus groups/3rd parties to give their opinion on the incident.
No, fuck Jewgle, they can`t just police the internet.
>>14616447
Are you fucking stupid? You think a computer can't be programmed to do exactly the same? If anything a computer can do it even better because it can be constantly aware of its surroundings, work out if a swerve is even possible and implement it if it is, quicker than a human could even realise what's happening.
>changing lanes right at an intersection
Does the car not know laws? Isn´t it against the law to change lanes on an intersection, or is it different in America?
>>14616243
Yes, but to relinquish control to robots entirely, they NEED to be perfect. There is no 99.9% allowed when it's completely out of the passengers hands.
At least When you make mistakes driving today, it's your own fault.
>>14616470
>No, fuck Jewgle, they can`t just police the internet.
But they can, and do. They ARE the internet.
>>14616465
Pretty much this tbhfam. Even trains and tram cars have a driver to perform basic functions. That being said, to replace so many of the functions a driver does simultaneously would be ridiculously expensive. Any self driving car is going to cost a shitton of money. They're already putting radar in cars for impact-detection and such, but what if it's something like a deer running out onto the road? Pretty advanced vehicle would be needed to brake, steer, and adjust itself to avoid shit like that.
Or what if someone attacks you and you need to drive away? Now you have to switch to manual mode and no one will know how to drive a fucking car anymore because it's been in autopilot for 5 years.
Self driving cars are a bad idea IMO. We should just be removing shitty drivers from the road and forcing them to use buses and trains. If they can't handle that, they need to work from home in some capacity.
>>14616489
Computers can only do as much as they are programmed to do. Its pretty much impossible to simulate every given factor and situation that can and will happen in a real world situation. With that said, self-driving cars will still be safer than your average driver.
>>14616489
Yeah but what if you need to run over that human being? The car will be programmed to avoid people and you won't hit your target. That's fucked.
>>14616491
You can't change lanes IN an intersection, you have to do it before you enter, or after you've exited it. I still see people do it IN intersections, but its fucked because there's no lane markers and idiots will be half in one lane and half in the other when they exit the intersection.
>>14616503
Which is why the standard is now to teach AI to teach themselves, which is why there are now AI (in google, in fact) beating world champions at Go, the single most complex boardgame ever made.
>>14616510
>Which is why the standard is now to teach AI to teach themselves
This will be the death of us all. It's such an obviously BAD idea to try to create something smarter than us. We're the smartest thing on this planet and all we do is kill and destroy everything dumber and weaker than us.
Why the fuck would you want to create something with the potential to be more intelligent than us? People who invest in AI should be liquidated.
>>14616510
Thing with boardgames is that there are concrete rules and a limited amount of choices that can be made, the AI just has to go through all choices and filter out the bad ones for the best one. The real world is slightly different though and unexpected things can happen.
>>14616520
You're making the mistake we see time and time again where you humanize AI. They will think inherently different from us, and if we're lucky they'll never understand us fucking horrible creatures.
I for one welcome the robotic future. As long as I'm still allowed to drive my car out at 3 AM, anyways.
>>14616529
There are more choices in Go than there are atoms in the universe. The entire reason it's been impossible to master until now by AI is because they did what you suggest - brute forcing the solution. The new technique is to actually create more complex learning and thinking so that they don't have to consider every single possibility, just as we don't.
>>14616530
Yes but if you look at any science fiction dealing with AI, humanization/personification comes about naturally. It wasn't something inherent in their programming, but a natural progression that came about. Self-awareness was unpredictable and that's why it proved so dangerous. How do you account for something that isn't even there to begin with?
t. Isaac Asimov
>>14616506
>Someone hacks the self-driving car and reprograms it to hit moving objects, including people.
>Distributes the program to whole fleets of self-driving cars.
Rise of the machines when?
>>14616537
>Microsoft releases a patch shortly thereafter which causes all self-driving cars to RROD if they are caught using pirated ECU software
>Makes it mandatory that all cars be connected to XBOXLIVE in order to operate
>Cheevos are available if you shill hard enough for a particular car brand or cuck yourself with autopilot 24/7
>>14616535
Asimov's a fuckin nerd who wrote some cool books that mean nothing for actual AI
Asimov's fiction is to AI research what the Simpsons is to nuclear power
>>14616537
>>14616547
>cars become subscription based and you are required to purchase a monthly pass in order to use your vehicle
>Microsoft can revoke your pass at any time for violation of EULA
>including modifications to your car
>certain roads become XBOX exclusives only
>without GOLD membership you are forced to take broken down backroads that destroy your self-driving cuckmobile
>without GOLD membership there is no roadside assistance and you're forced to walk 50 miles to the nearest self-driving taxi depot
>>14616551
>t. someone who has never read a book in his life
His works are largely philosophical allegories, just like, you know, 90% of SCIENCE FICTION.
Jesus Christ you don't even have to read his books to get the general message, just watch 5 minutes of Jurassic Park.
>Life will find a way
>>14616572
I know entirely what his books are about, the problem I was stating there is that people take both way too seriously and end up hurting technological growth. They're fiction, they're not representations of reality.
>>14616579
>They're fiction, they're not representations of reality.
Same applies to infinite technological growth.
>>14616579
That's why we never reference fiction in comparison to reality, right? Like Orwell's vision of a hyper-vigilant future in which cameras and government control are ever present, surveillance becomes the norm, populist rhetoric is the dominant narrative in the average person's brain, and goods become of such poor quality that it's shameful to even use them?
Yeah, fiction never gets it right, those guys are just crazy.
>they hurt technological growth
Or maybe they're the only ones with enough common sense to dictate what everyone else is too blind to see? Wouldn't want to stifle your "growth" and "progression" eh Oppenheimer?
You're being an ass, please stop.
>>14616591
We've had a surprisingly consistently growing pace up until now, no reason to make baseless assumptions.
>>14616603
I'm glad to see you're using such a fullproof argument as 'well one guy got it right so everything else must be right too'! I think the part that really sold me was the underlying fear of the unknown and a complete unwillingness to imagine anything different than oneself, that part really convinced me.
Let us hope people with your stance on technology aren't the ones who will decide our future, though with that said the odds are pretty high since humanity is prone to doing self-damaging shit like that.
>>14616489
>self driving car travelling 40mph
>little jimmy chases ball into road
>go straight and brake and kill kid
>swerve right into parked car
>swerve left into path of speeding truck
A human will use his better judgement and choose option 2, saving the kid, himself, and resulting in nothing more than an insurance claim. What does a computer do?
>>14616622
>fullproof
>>14618714
It analyzes the situation, and "sees" a human, a large emoving vehicle, and a stationary vehicle. It then picks the stationary vehicle to preserve human life.
>>14618714
>>14618861
Muh i robot
> watching a clearly frustrated female teenage drive
> getting mad at a slow bus thats taking its time turning
> she goes into oncoming traffic to pass it
> looks good
> doesn' look when merging and hits a guy
> asshole on phone while driving switches lanes with signaling and hits a truck
Yeah I can't wait for this technology, fuck people, humans are shit drivers
>>14616489
>You think a computer can't be programmed to do exactly the same?
That's the issue. The computer has to be programmed to react to each individual situation. When the computer is introduced to an unexpected situation that had not been taken into consideration during programming, it lacks the situational awareness and judgment to react appropriately.
>it can be constantly aware of its surroundings
Not nearly as well as you think. Giving a computer raw data telling it everything about it's surroundings in a simulation is extremely easy. It knows where absolutely everything is, the exact direction everything is going, and how fast. But implementing that into reality is not as accurate. Computers lack the perception we have. They're far faster at calculations and reactions but that does not make them universally superior. While they communicate with each other with unrivaled efficiency, they do not communicate with the physical universe so easily. Think of all the shit that goes into even relatively poor quality 3D motion capture. you can't just throw a camera on the front of a car and expect it to gather all of the info it needs from that. Have you never avoided accidents by getting a feel for what's going on in other drivers' heads? Does a computer know to be cautious of a driver that's going 10 under the limit and is looking at buildings instead of the road or his/her mirrors? Is the computer even able to pick up on what that driver is paying attention to? This is stuff that's instinctual for any decent driver but a computer would struggle with.
>>14620791
There are problem solving algorithms, you know. It's not just an really long list of "if ___ then ____".
Wow, I'm amazed. Whenever a thread about this comes up on /g/, I laugh at how they don't know dick about cars. Turns out /o/ is the same. How could so many people have the "enough to be dangerous" level of knowledge? So consistently wrong. Did you purposefully learn enough about computers to only spew half-truths?
>>14616463
top kek
>>14616447
>the advantage of judgement
Isn't that the problem? By the time we're halfway through judging a situation the accident has already occurred because our reactions are slower than the thing we're driving.
These self driving cars can't even handle 5mph, whats going to happen on a 100mph highway in an emergency situation? Cameras can only see so far... What if the cameras are blocked by snow and the gps malfunctions? My satellite radio can't even hold a signal near a mall...
Once I see a self driving car keeping up with a pro driver on something like a off road rally stage I'll start fearing for my right to "self drive"
>>14616182
This so fucking much.
I can't wait for this whole self driving bullshit to end.
ffs, what's next, self driving planes or spaceships?
Fucking ridiculous.
>>14616501
>Or what if someone attacks you and you need to drive away?
Americans
>>14618861
But how does it know there's not a person in that car? What if that's your neighbor and you know she always leaves her baby in the car while she goes to get its baby bag? Now the self driving car has killed a baby instead of getting in a fender bender with that f150 driving the other way.
Basically, until AI gets to the point that they acquire true sentience and self awareness, they should never be allowed to make any desicions at all, let alone any that potentially affect the lives of people
>>14621342
>Once I see a self driving car keeping up with a pro driver
That's the entire reason Formula E is looking to do automated racing, my man
>>14621348
>ffs, what's next, self driving planes or spaceships?
Both are being worked on, actually.
>>14616182
OP is retarded, These google self driving cars have been on the road for many years and have logged millions of miles. and while they have been involved in accidents, 99% of ALL of them have been because of driver error of the other car. This is probably what? The very first accident caused by a software bug?
Fact is the number of miles logged was compared to the accident rate of humans with same number of miles, humans would have caused hundreds of thousands of accidents.
TL;DR self driving car are superior when it comes to safety and overall driving skills. But go ahead and tell me about your superior driving skills and that you have millions of dollars in sponsors because of said skills. Next you'll tell me your the record holder at the burger ring
>>14622400
I don't think you're going to see a person in the parked car either, and it's a car, it's a cage of safety.
>>14621342
Good thing they use LIDAR and I think cell data for location as well as estimations based off of a local map system and speed/direction sensors.
Nah I'm not scared.
Right to drive a car might as well be the yuro equivalent of the second ammendment.
>>14622442
>That's the entire reason Formula E is looking to do automated racing, my man
When Tesla jumps into Formula E, Then I'll be worried.
>>14619034
>more technology that prevents retards from killing themselves
Are are you so against natural selection?
>>14623817
This is why I`m against safety shit.
>>14623817
>>14623844
Look at it this way: It keeps retards from wrecking our good cars.
>>14623868
But thanks to that safety shit we don't have good cars anymore.
>>14616455
This. All bus drivers will drive like they have the right away and will run over anyone who thinks otherwise. Rule of thumb, avoid buses by using lots of HP.
>>14621348
JFC
This MUST be trolling.
We've had self-driving planes for many years now.
>>14621348
>self driving planes or spaceships
How retarded are you? Those already fly themselves.
