I'm not asking if because in my mind it's an inevitability. My question is WHEN. When will human driven cars not be allowed on the road? I believe we will have full on self driven cars on the roads in at least 5 years and at most 10. No way it'll be longer than 10. So with these self driven cars when will human driven cars be outlawed on the roads? Human error is the cause of almost every accident so self driven cars are definitely the future.
pic related. Stop lights will no longer be needed if all cars are in constant communication with each other communicating at the speed of radio waves back and forth between any and all cars nearby. It'll be safer and more efficient if there are no human drivers on the roads.
Intersections like that may not be possible yet because you cannot predict road conditions and such. Rate of acceleration/decelleration may vary.
And not every traffic collision is the fault of a human. Icy road and a large animal comes into the path of the car and it is unable to stop. Nobody is at fault. Infact a human driver may have an advantage as it could swerve into a snowbank and have a softer landing instead of hitting a moose that weights half a ton.
>>7952845
The onboard computer can sense road conditions because... you know... it's on the road. It can tell if it's icy or what not. Also I guarantee you a machine would have a faster reaction time than any human. They'll break quicker or swerve quicker.
>>7952843
maybe not ever. You can still see horse driven carriages on some roads today.
>>7952843
>There were 1.25 million road traffic deaths globally in 2013
http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/
Not soon enough for my tastes.
>>7952845
The AI driven cars have had accidents already, but all of them were the fault of humans driving other vehicles.
>>7952843
>Human error is the cause of almost every accident so self driven cars are definitely the future.
You seem to be assuming that computer-driven cars won't make similar errors.
But we're not talking about the kind of task with absolute answers that computers are so good at.
I'm sure the technology has potential to improve on humans, but it's not a the kind of task that anything can do perfectly.
And before we get to your utopian ideal, what happens the first time a self-driving car kills someone?
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and you can't drive billions of cars without killing *somebody*.
That said... I'm really looking forward to the improvements self-driving cars will bring, not just in terms of safety, but also in terms of more efficient use of the roads.
I hate it when that one driver leaves a huge gap in front of themselves as traffic goes through a green light.
It's like they're using more than their "fair share" of the light.
>>7952843
15-20
because there's a lot of baby boomer luddites who have an immediate distrust of any technological solution to a problem
>>7952861
holy shit that video was so satisfying. And yeah I can't wait either. Roads will be so much better. Also getting around will be a lot easier.
>>7952867
>15-20
Even if the last non-self-driving car is sold by 2020 (unlikely), it'll be 2040 (or later) before there aren't many old-fashioned cars on the road.
/n/ here
A downside of this future is bicycles.
I trust cars to avoid bikes, but would you want bikes to become illegal because they aren't self-driving?
What about motorcycles?
Hopefully never, because I want to ride my motorcycle.
>>7952856
Also, you will never see large trucks driven by AI. Get enough AI cars on the road and they will get in accidents of course. OP is a 12 year old, wish I was 12 years old again.
>>7952866
A computer doesn't get distracted by the song on the radio. A computer wont zone out going 60 on the highway. A computer wont text and drive or talk on the phone. A computer never gets tired. A computer can't get drunk.
When (not if because I agree it's bound to happen) a self driven car kills someone i'm sure there will be a massive investigation into what went wrong. Fix the problem just like any other computer gets patches. A car will be no different. Find a glitch fix a glitch.
>>7952867
yeah old people will definitely have a problem with this. But they might be more accepting because of the ease. I imagine you just get in the car and type in or even say where you're going and you just go. Wont be complicated at all.
>>7952874
Bicycles no
Motorcycles yes
Mopeds ?
>>7952851
You cant know exactly how the car will respond physically. There is uncertainty and you cant just rely on simple physics.
>>7952861
Yes they have. Drive them on bad roads, something other than a freshly paved road in California. These cars will still have accidents at say fault of animals even, which is exactly my point.
Not every accident is the faul of you or the driver. The end.
>>7952877
actually i'm 22 but alright.
Some trucks need human drivers because of the cargo. It might be toxic or require some sort of special care. That's the only humans I can imagine really driving on roads at that point. But maybe they wont be allowed on some roads.
>>7952871
FYI, that is video edited from a rush hour so that you get to see everything at once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufK2XRGUjuc
Here's a similarly edited video:
https://vimeo.com/82038912
>>7952887
>humans need to drive because toxic stuff
>implying a person can't just supervise while the computer drives
>implying they cant just have sensors to detect failiure and then fly someone out to fix any problems
>implying trains arent superior to trucks
u really are stupid OP
Honestly I'm pro self driving car as long as there's a possibility for a manual override (i.e. humans can take the wheel in case of an emergency)
>>7952874
You bicycle would just need an on board locator so traffic can plan around you, sync with you, or whatever. It wouldn't even need to be part of a big network, just something that sends out a short range low power signal.
>>7952890
I originally said no human drivers but that guy said they need humans driving trucks so I acknowledge his point and i'm the idiot? Why not go after him? He's the one who originally said trucks need to be driven by humans.
>>7952843
Hopefully never. I love driving.
I don't mind self-driving cars assuming the "self-driving" part is toggleable. It would be nice for my car to drive itself in the rush hour commute so I could kick back and do something else while I'm sitting in I-84 traffic, or if I've had a few too many at the bar. But when I want to drive I want to be in control so I want to be able to turn it off. Outlawing human driving cars is stupid. I'm willing to take on some potential risk to enjoy myself.
>>7952899
I'm the opposite. I hate driving. I'm in control of a 1 ton metal rocket going 60 MPH. 1 mistake costs thousands of dollars. I don't want that pressure or responsibility. I only drive because I have to. Also people on the roads are fucking assholes. I hate overly aggressive drivers.
I don't think ever. I think there will always need to be a licensed driver behind the wheel. You will still need to pass the driving test and get a license. Someone has to be behind the wheel who can drive the car manually if they have to.
>>7952851
I would honestly like to know how the car will be able to detect a patch of ice under an inch of snow 50 feet away or however far it would take the car to react appropriately.
>>7952919
how would a human?
>>7952907
>1 mistake costs thousands of dollars
Then don't fuck up. You can't control what somebody else does on the road. Just make sure you've got your wits about you and aren't doing stupid shit and don't worry about the rest.
You do the best you can to drive properly, always signal, don't ride the left lane except to pass, always do at least the speed limit (traffic permitting), etc. Basically just telegraph your intentions as clearly as you can. It's okay to speed if you are doing the above stuff and still going at a "reasonable" speed. 80mph on the highway, usually fine traffic and weather permitting. 150mph on the highway, almost always unsafe. Of course you risk getting pulled over and if that's too high a risk for you just don't speed, but if you do be smart about it.
That's essentially it. Be aware and observant. I've gotten pretty good at predicting when people are about to do something stupid and being ready to react to it. It's a skill but it doesn't take too long to get good at if you live in an area with loads of shitty drivers. I live in Connecticut so I learned really fucking fast.
If you're doing all of the above you will never be the cause of an accident. You'd rather always be the person to get hit than the one who does the hitting and of course always have insurance. I've never had an accident fortunately, I've been driving since I was 18 I think which would make it about 7 years as of now.
>>7952926
guy said a computer could. whether a human could isnt relevant
>>7952843
In this thread, the text-string "hack" has not appeared at my latest check, until the time that I uploaded this post.
Of course in the interest of honesty, it bears mentioning that humans can also have heart attacks and strokes and so on while driving, in addition to the more commonly fatal or hazardous stupidities of anger, drunk driving, simple carelessness, etc. I myself trusted my driver side rear-view more than I should have the other day, failing to remember that objects are closer than they appear. The motorist behind me honked in a huff.
The issue is between the common cultural and market acceptance of self-driven cars, versus the legal MANDATE of same, at which OP and other left-tech types seem to salivate ITT. A lower post laments that it will take time for the boomers to die off so that we can give up more autonomy. But of course, they don't see it that way. Better to be a passenger. After all, we regularly place our lives in the hands of certain industries.
An obvious (expensive?) middle way, which will become even more obvious once a few of these vehicles have been successfully hacked by Islamic terrorists (or which ever actor you prefer for the hack-crash-hypothetical that we all know perfectly well WILL happen as historical reality within most of our lifetimes), is the manual override. How does one mechanically override whatever a hacker is doing, in situ?
>>7952930
But i'm human. Humans make mistakes. I don't want to fuck up and luckily I haven't fucked up yet but it's still a huge risk you take every time you drive. It's scary and makes me all anxious.
I always go within 5 of the speed limit. If it's 60 i'm going 55-65 even if the road in front of me is completely empty. Not worth speeding to get somewhere 5 minutes sooner.
I live in New Jersey and fuck people here.
>>7952878
>Fix the problem just like any other computer gets patches. A car will be no different. Find a glitch fix a glitch.
You're missing my point.
There is a perfect way to square a number, with no mistakes.
There's a perfect way to sort a list of names, with no mistakes.
There might even be a perfect way to play a game of chess with no mistakes (though I doubt it).
There is NOT a perfect way to drive a car with no mistakes.
It's not that kind of task.
AI can't be perfectly correct the way a calculator is, because the tasks involved don't have perfect answers.
If we could bugfix intelligence, I'd be married to a program.
>>7952938
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0SrxBC1xs
relevant
>>7952926
They wouldn't, though a human experienced with the conditions and area would know to slow down more where ice ice likely to form.
But, that wasn't my point.
>>7952851 suggested that the computer would be able to not only take the human factor out of the equation, but also things like road conditions and unseen hazards.
I agree that the computer WOULD be able to detect a hazard and react to it far faster than a human. However, there are things like animals and hidden ice that are essentially unavoidable.
Also, while humans are prone to mistakes, they
can also think outside the box and make an make an educated guess as to what might be lurking up ahead and prepare just in case.
A computer would only be able react based on the data that is currently available and what it is programmed to do in said situation.
>>7952952
>where ice IS likely to form
>>7952938
It's a local and sentimental (unscientific) point, but I'm going to make it. I've known and heard of multiple older people, people in their 80s, relatives, friends. What has been repeated among this set more than once, is that the single hardest thing, more than chemo, more than breaking a hip, was giving up driving. It's the abdication of this freedom as last resort, which a certain attitude in this thread in a certain way disgustingly vaunts, that was most painful to them.
The obvious retort to this is that nana can now wriggle into her self driving car and not have to deal with any stupid people at the home, and not hazard the public health, and still meet her girlfriends for brunch. And it is a salient point. But what disgusts me about millenials is how readily they wish to abdicate responsibility-oriented-freedom, on general principles.
Today, a late march blizzard blew through the area. I successfully navigated from a store over 20 miles from my home, negotiated the roadways, escaped near-zero visibility, all on my own. More unscientific sentimentality, but I was alive. and ISIS did not hack me.
>>7952867
>the only reason one would ever be opposed to the idea of 100% self driving cars is because he's scared of technology
top-tier logic right there
>>7952956
I'd have no problem giving up driving if I could be driven around instead. So much easier.
>>7952969
It goes to individual temperament. Like You, I know other people who hate driving and would be happy to give it up.
Personally, I love it, which I think comes through in the above.
>>7952977
what do you like about all that responsibility? It's terrifying if you think about it how easily you could be completely fucked.
>>7952867
Self Driving cars pose some issues. These self driving cars may correct human error in driving but these self driving cars also need to be able to sense differences in road changes, it shouldn't be able to take alternate routes, and what happens if a bridge is incomplete and whatever system it uses thinks there is a bridge when there is none? These are the real issues with self driving cars. Once we have all the kinks worked out and we have a perfect self driving car then it'll be golden but that won't happen until at least 2030-2040
If a self driving car has one passenger and two people jump out in front, should the car swerve off the road and kill its passenger, or hit the 2 pedestrians?
>>7952843
>Stop lights will no longer be needed if all cars are in constant communication with each other
and for that you need standards. Standards are a bitch
>>7952919
You might be able to use radar to do that. Alternatively, you might be able to get data from other cars that tells you a patch of ice is there and to slow down.
>>7952930
Fellow Connecticut driver here. Totally unrelated, but I can't even count how many times I've seen some douche merge 4 lanes at once on I-95b ecause they were too stupid to get to their exit lane in advance. Or how often I have someone riding my ass even though I'm already 10 mph over the speed limit.
God damn Massholes.
>>7952877
Why?
>>7953091
I think I see his train of thought. Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto 5? Do you see how those NPCs drive? Thats essentially how AI will drive.
>>7952845
>Intersections like that may not be possible yet because you cannot predict road conditions and such. Rate of acceleration/decelleration may vary.
you can program in safety margins
also there will be data available from the vehicles actually traversing the intersection, cloud style. wich can be used in the calculation
so you would start out with large safety margins (space wise) and number of vehicles below maxload. and then gradually approximate the optimum
Personally I'm more interested how they would handle roads that aren't so clean an well marked. Getting a computer to drive down a wide road with little visual noise is on thing, getting it to drive down a narrow and overgrown country lane is another.
>>7953090
>riding my ass
Slow fucks in the slow lane.
>>7953608
>hurr durr, computers are incapable of discerning corners
A computer will be able to ride at 1mm next to the edge of a cliff with perfect stability and blaze past oncoming traffic in narrow streets/roads. I don't know why people assume the first iteration is the final one.
>>7952843
https://youtu.be/_8nnhUCtcO8
>>7952843
>Stop lights will no longer be needed if all cars are in constant communication with each other communicating at the speed of radio waves back and forth between any and all cars nearby
That would only be true if there was nothing else on the road ever. How do pedestrians fit in that system? They don't. So an intersection like that could only exist at separated roadways, but those already have better solutions that don't involve crossing traffic at all (cloverleaf, etc)
>>7953608
>EuropeanRoad.jpg
>>7952843
I'd say that is a question for a lawyer and political scientists.
The question is will there even be laws that forbid human drivers?
I think at some point car makers will only ne allowed to make selfdriving cars and at some point they will not have a interface for the human to drive (also by law) - and at last the government will stop handing out drivers license. But that means it will take at least 100years for completely human driver free roads.
>>7953091
Also hacks. Everything is hackable, and is as soon as market share reaches a critical mass. Hacked AI cars, think about it! Teh terra!
>>7952989
So instead of taking responsibility you rather would have no control in case something you did was wrong?
http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/92214013593/power
a fitting post on the subject
>inb4 tumblr get out REEEEEEE
I swear it's fitting
>>7952843
I would much prefer a car running on its own sensors
Once you connect it to the internet, it can be hacked remotely. No thanks
Really? 10 years? I highly doubt that, mainly because of something that has nothing to do with the technology; money. A lot of people can't afford a brand new car, let alone what a brand new car with self driving technology will cost. There's no way human-driven cars will be banned anytime soon.
>>7953609
he's going 10 MPH above the speed limit
>>7953624
and that's why it's not released yet. We're talking about the future.
>>7953682
i'd rather something else take on that burden. I'd rather have a chauffeur driving me around instead of having to do it myself. So much less stressful.
>>7953719
you misread the OP.
In 10 years there will be self driving cars. Not human drivers will be banned in 10 years. Just that the cars will be available for purchase and legal on the roads.
>>7952989
Culturally (and personally), it's a valuable performance of adulthood, manhood, autonomy. I can live with myself making a mistake that only affects me - it's on me, and that's fine.
The idea that you're stuck in the death cage and a hack or a hijack comes on, and there's nothing that you can do about it - that's what is intolerable. That's how those passengers feel in the rare instance that a plane is hijacked, or crashes. Statistics don't matter anymore once it's you who's unlucky.
>>7953892
i'm an adult too and i'd give up that shit in a heartbeat if I could. Too much pressure to drive. I would love to be driven around instead.
>>7952843
>because in my mind it's an inevitability
Never. Everyone who has ever worked in computer vision (myself included) will never ride a car without a manual override.
>>7952907
Typical /sci/ desu, can't really enjoy life as a human
I'm not trying to hate, it's just that a lot of people here are so different from me, I just can't relate
Personally I like driving a lot, I'd be unhappy if human drivers get banned, but maybe I'd manage with flying instead
>>7953788
wew, your car on windows 10!
>>7953918
>Everyone who has ever worked in computer vision (myself included) will never ride a car without a manual override.
bullshit
>>7953892
Yeah I guess that's why nobody ever rides in a car as a passenger.
I don't mind driving but I agree OP that human driving will be outlawed eventually. Can't even be mad because of multiple reasons:
1. no more retards driving at night without lights on
2. no more retards not using their blinkers properly
3. not being liable in an accident
4. your travel time becomes leisure time
Also what's with all the idiots citing crashes as if technology never improves? I'd expect a forum full of young people to intuitively grasp this concept.
>>7953675
>everything is hackable
in truth it's extremely hard to create exploitable bugs nowadays
also, typesafe languages are (minus the runtime) completely safe
>>7954656
I would only trust self driving cars if they were open source. Even then I would be an active member of the source community, remote exploit security section. Already happening, late model cars are hackable, can be remotely disabled by dealer, can be remotely disabled by anyone. Also, can't even "update" your car through windows update site yet, like wtf, would not trust.
>>7954291
I much prefer to be a passenger. So much easier.
>>7954326
human drivers will just fuck up the self driving cars. Computers can be in constant communication and tell each other what they're about to do. Humans are unpredictable.
>>7954825
how would they fuck it up? unless they actively grab the wheel and go crazy I don't see how they'd fuck it up. If you're talking about human drivers interacting with AI cars, the AI cars will eventually have reaction algorithms for nearly every situation and will react much faster than a human driver.
It has a long ways to go though because I've heard stories of current cars suddenly stopping due to cruise control. That kind of stuff has to be wiped out completely before this becomes a reality.
>>7954839
How long have you been driving? Humans do crazy shit on the road all the time. They're fucking idiots. The roads will be so much safer without overly aggressive assholes on the roads.
>>7952843
AI is such a toxic, paranoid field that I scarcely expect even self-driving cars would do anything to the economy. The more likely approach is that the culture of the US will shift gradually back to public transportation. Even a single corporation with a decent model of how to distribute carriages well would impact the economy of our culture far faster than self-driving cars would.
>>7952843
Never. Any kind of automated system can be spoofed or hacked.
You throw a blow-up doll into an intersection today and people will swerve around or run it over. You throw one into that intersection in the OP and all the Google cars will kill their passengers to avoid it.
Also, the legal system would need to change dramatically. If self-driving cars reduced traffic fatalities from 10,000 a year to 5,000 a year, Google won't get 5,000 thank-you letters but 5,000 wrongful death lawsuits.
The system would have to be perfect and it can't be.
>>7954868
Where do you live? Good public transportation is a pipe dream outside of densely populated areas
>>7954873
>outside of densely
Then strictly an edge case.
>>7954900
nigga what? Most people don't live in the city, you know
>>7952886
The cars will communicate with each other while receiving commands from a central unit. If cars differ too much from their predestinated location those two cars will know it and if collision is imminent will stop and recalculate their path until it works out.
>>7954902
Yes, but outside of cities the population density is strictly lower, meaning it's easier to find a solution to their shared problems without causing conflicts of interest. In terms of the complexity of solution in cities vs. elsewhere, elsewhere is a self-solving edge case. Cities, and particularly the tendency of cities to form self-centric cultures, means that you have to start in the city if you want to proliferate an advanced humanitarian aide program such as auto piloted automobiles.
I probably should have resorted to a comparative economics argument like I did yesterday.
>>7952861
this isn't germany. two things, 1, those are not german police cars. 2, germany has traffic laws.
looks alot more like india or asia in general.
>>7955725
Being this dense.
>>7953779
And apparently he's too slow.
>>7952877
>trucks
It's already happening.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/daimler-demos-truck-platooning-to-save.html
>Daimler demos truck platooning to save 7% on fuel and has network connected 365000 trucks already
>I love driving
>I love russian roulette
Why do people look at you in different ways when you say these things?
>>7955940
>Already today, Daimler Trucks generates valuable information to a previously unimaginable extent with its approximately 400 sensors per vehicle and is fully connected with software including 100 millions of lines of code - more than a passenger jet
>100 millions of lines of code
>Daimler
wew, not much added value and still paying a trucker to sit in the drivers seat.
100 million exploits. Will end badly, remember what this corp is famous for, shit vehicles!
Does the driverless car that is going to crash, but is able to choose how/where to crash, make the choice that results in the least human fatalities?
What if it's a choice between hitting two people in the road of swerving into a wall and killing the single passenger? If you load up your car with enough passengers then you should be safe most of the time, right? How do you persuade the car that you're more valuable? Will the car choose not to hit other cars of the same type, given a choice of how to crash?
>>7955982
even if you crash you won't die
>>7956191
This is an theoretical incident. If people are crossing the streets the car will get that info, even when its happening 1km away. You'd need to jump in front of the car in order to provoke such incidents.
Well, this is what I believe how the implementation will work in order to minimize accidents as far as possible.
>>7952893
they wouldn't even need that, most self-driving cars use lidar to sense everything around them anyway
>>7952895
'cause fuck you faggot
>>7952919
this will be trivial once all roads are computerized as well
>>7952930
or i could get a robot car and not have to worry about any of that bullshit
>>7952938
the cars don't need network capability of any kind to drive themselves successfully alongside other robot cars, regular cars, pedestrians, animals, road hazards, etc.
there's nothing to hack.
>>7952952
just like a computer would automatically be driving more slowly and cautiously in low-temperature and other hazardous conditions; good luck getting all human drivers to exercise the same caution
>>7952969
that's literally the only thing you value. how easy things are. your life must be totally empty.
>>7952989
why does it terrify you? why are you so afraid of responsibility?
>>7953016
except we already have cars that can sense basic shit like obstructions and hazards and missing bridges, and have had them for almost a decade now?
>>7953061
the car comes to a complete stop in plenty of time, thanks to its sub-millisecond reaction time and superior braking technique, killing no one. try again.
>>7953079
the cars don't have to communicate with each other.
>>7953653
why do you think they wouldn't be able to detect pedestrians?
>>7956822
Unlike that guy, I think they would detect pedestrians TOO well and jerk to a stop unnecessarily.
>>7955831
that's not too slow. The other people are going too fast. Just slow the fuck down.
>>7956841
>the world should change and not me
>>7953682
>http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/92214013593/power
I dunno, Anon, it just looks like a whole lot of projection to me.
>>7956802
because it's scary. So much pressure.
>>7956854
well if the world is wrong then yes. If you're breaking the law and i'm not you're the problem
>>7952843
human . made self driven cars .
>human error . accidents
>wut
>>7956874
well good luck with that. Idealism is the utopian's best friend after all
>>7956885
i'm pretty sure they wont program cars to break the law
>>7956896
you said "slow the fuck down", I assumed we were talking about human drivers going too fast
>>7956905
I was but i'm relating it to the thread also. Human drivers need to slow the fuck down. Luckily in the future hopefully there will be no human drivers.
>>7956874
>All laws are just and reasonable
Statecuck detected.
>>7956929
democracy is mob rule m8.
>>7956929
not going 150 MPH on a highway where the speed limit is 60 MPH seems pretty reasonable... I'll give you a 10 MPH buffer you can go over. 70 is acceptable but after that slow the fuck down. You'll get to your destination don't worry. Unless your wife is in labor in the back seat and you're driving to the hospital you don't need to be going that fast. Calm down you impatient fucks.
>>7956920
Honestly I don't think this program will be viable until there are no human drivers. Humans add unknown variables to the equation that could throw off the AI.
You know how everyone slows down to look at an accident? How would an AI car respond in that situation? What about if it gets cut off on the highway? Just slamming on the brakes is not always a good response.
>>7956933
exactly. That's why they need to get rid of human drivers. The sooner the better.
>>7956932
>wife is in labor
Pedal to metal and into brick wall.
Who the hell wants a wife let alone spawn crotch fruit in a global technocratic police state of automation anyway?
>>7956970
just an example of an emergency when it would be acceptable to drive like an asshole by speeding.
Call me a ludite, but I'd actually oppose any and all attempts to try to ban human-driven cars. Imagine dying because your car's AI got some sort of MMO-styled "patch" that was meant to make it more safe.
I don't care how or when I die, as long as I'm dying because I did something stupid, and not because a machine did something stupid....or worse, because another human, who made that machine, did something stupid.
I also just have a real problem with ending up like one of those fat people from Wall-E
>>7955982
One in 6 vs one in a few billion.
That's like asking why "I love really fucking working at my job and trying to bully my way into a good position" and "I love playing the lottery" aren't equivalent statements.
>>7956982
driving isn't exercise. You wont get fat just because you don't drive.
>>7956006
>you can't take baby steps with this shit
Kid...
>>7956970
>Who the hell wants a wife
lol, can you not do simple math?
disregarding looks and fuckability, a decent wife is cook, maid, and personal assistant rolled into one. you know how much it would cost to pay market price for those services? its like 35k$+. even a "high maintanence" wife is only going to run you like 15-20k$ a year. marriage is a pretty good deal if you choose wisely.
>>7956992
assuming you don't get JUSTed, of course
but then you said "decent" wife, so
>>7957008
a decent wife isn't hard to find. a decent hot wife who will suck your dick from behind while tugging on your nuts is the real struggle.
>>7956988
It's not just getting fat. It's becoming completely dependent on machines to do literally anything that is even remotely a pain in the ass. It's the urge to pick up a calculator, as soon as you have a 3 digit multiplication problem. It's the basic fucking principle behind smartphones, and I hate it with a passion.
Motherfuck, we already killed off spelling. You know that I had an English professor who asked the class how to spell "pulpit"? He use to be a junior preacher!
Sometimes I just like doing shit too, you know? Why is the world entitled to such a stupid amount of my time, I can't even make time to do the little, solitary shit like driving or putting some tea on to boil? Is it a grand offense to make time for anything but "work, drinking, and time with one of my electronic idiot boxes"?
>>7957118
you want to make things that don't have to be hard hard? Why are you against making life a little easier?
>>7956854
Nigga going 15 miles over the speed limit gets you a reckless driving charge and your license stripped. I'm not gonna risk that just because your ass couldn't leave earlier. 10 MPH over the limit is more than enough.
I'm most interested in seeing how self-driving cars effect the relationship between law enforcement and everyday citizens. All violations would go directly to the manufacturer, right? And violations themselves would go down drastically meaning that a major source of police revenue goes away entirely, in addition to parking tickets. Plus you don't have inefficiencies like fatasses sitting around in patrol cars pointing radar guns at people trying to meet their quota. It seems like there'd actually be a lot less police overall,
>>7952843
Hopefully never, driving is a pleasure and I dont trust a shitty program made by poos in loos waiting to be hacked. Its bad enough we already have to put up with all this drive-by-wire crap.
>>7957711
driving is a burden that i'm more than happy giving up.
>>7957796
prob cuz ur a poorfag faggot that drives a shitty vehicle
>>7957704
>All violations would go directly to the manufacturer, right?
Nope. To insurance.
>>7957704
Hmmm. They are already being displaced by speed/light cameras. This is the real automation, all truckers have a gps chip installed in their rectums now. All functions and vehicle operations monitored.
>>7957711
MS-Poo ornaments are already installed in new Fords I think. Soon Poo scripts will upload speeding violations direct to your local coppers. This is the real future of AI transportation and its already well underway.
>>7959424
i'm poor and i love driving my little 90's toyota shitbox.
>>7959424
not at all. It's just a burden. You guys can't understand why i'd rather have someone driving me around but i'm thinking the same thing about you. Why wouldn't you want one? Fuck around on your phone or something idk all i'm saying is you wont need to focus on driving.
Sydney drivers are fucking shit, I want self driving cars asap
It's either
>dumb asian who drives 10-15 under, and goes 40 in school zones when it's not even the designated time
>Tradesmen in his ute going 15-20 over and running reds, riding up your arse if you even dare to go a measly 5kph over the limit
People also give you about 500ms to take off at the lights, any longer and you get honked.
>>7959828
exactly. Fuck driving
I hope never desu.
I really like driving and it felt immensely empowering when I got my first car at 17.
That said, I would probably support some kind of forced AI control in areas of very heavy traffic / peak times. Computers can handle it much more efficiently and safely than frustrated idiots.
>mfw some dickhead floors it at the lights and shoots off going 20-30 kmh above the speed limit
>mfw they just get stuck at the next set
>mfw all that rushing doesn't actually get them anywhere quicker
>>7960049
you'd still have your car. You'd still have the freedom to go wherever whenever. You just don't need the hassle of driving yourself.
>>7960062
I don't find it a hassle at all though. I sometimes quite enjoy the peaceful engagement of a long drive, depends how life is going.
>>7960077
I'd rather watch a movie on a long drive. Or take a nap. Both less stressful than driving.
>>7952886
>You cant know exactly how the car will respond physically. There is uncertainty and you cant just rely on simple physics.
>Computers are less predictable than people.
Can't these people be banned?
>>7960088
Driving isn't remotely stressful for me
>>7952843
>When will human driven cars not be allowed
... when money can no longer buy privilege, which is to say, NEVAR
>>7960077
>>7960099
Finding driving enjoyable, doesn't make you not victim to human error. Once AI reaches a lower risk factor as humans we will slowly see a shift and I hope states declare self-driving (in the sense the human drives his own car) illegal. Also, you are being very selfish and in fact very ignorant about the high death rate on the streets. We should take every measurement possible in order to make roads safer.
In the end we will probably still have spaces where you can drive the car yourself, but it will be outside of huge populations.
>>7960171
What about secondary costs of going 100% automated? There's smaller things like truckers and taxi drivers, but you also all but dismantle auto insurance companies. You also cut a huge portion of cities' incomes by making traffic violations non-existant (though probably made up for by downsizing the police and DMV who have to handle all those cases).
I'm not saying these are bad, but all combined it will definitely be a lot of financial incentives for a whole bunch of corporations to lobby against it.
>>7956873
Welcome to the real world.
I find it quite amusing that there are some of you out there that would ban human driving just because they find it boring, stressful, scary, etc.
There is a lot of people who like driving. And I am not talking about car or bike enthusiasts, I'm talking about regular people who commute to work, liking the drive they take.
I consider myself a car and bike enthusiast and I enjoy every minute I spend on the road (driving or calling shotgun). My mother shares this feeling, although she only commutes to work and does not go on joyrides with her car.
Yes, driving is dangerous. Every time I drive I can see that. But you know what? Walking is dangerous (don't want to sprain your ankle now, would we), cycling is dangerous, heck even cooking is dangerous. But you don't see people banning uneven surfaces, shoes, bicycles and such. Maybe, just maybe, you have to live with dangerous shit around you and accept responsibility for your actions. Wrapping every pointy bit with padding and banning anything remotely dangerous won't get us anywhere.
That being said, if you want AI driving, then be my guest, go ahead and have it, but don't project your opinions over everyone. You can buy a car with tons of AI assists (a lot of cars already have this for highway driving, although they are expensive) and have a nice day without ruining driving for everyone.
>>7960250
The problem is that you are apparently too selfish to recognize that AI driving has the potential to become much safer. The analogy you draw between cooking and driving is fallacious. Cooking has no alternative while car driving eventually has one.
>>7960254
And where did I state I did not recognize AI driving as safe? All I stated was that there are people out there that enjoy driving, like someone enjoys bicycling or running and that banning driving would in essence reduce the freedom one has.
The analogy between cooking and driving was there just to point out an extreme.
You use knives and other sharp and pointy things while cooking, no?
Humans are prone to mistakes so how come you still have all your fingers?
We should ban human interaction with knives!
See what I mean? I completely agree that AI cars are safer in general, as I have seen some of the driving assists work wonders (in freight trucks to keep the truck in the lane for example) and I have no doubt they will (some already are) reduce accidents on the roads.
But ban human driving altogether? I think that is a step too far.
cowards.
cars must remain human driven.
precisely because it is NOT safe.
>>7960265
Another way how your analogy was not rigorous: Accidents while cooking are mostly your fault while driving takes human errors from other participants into account.
>But ban human driving altogether? I think that is a step too far.
Maybe it is. How about installing a AI on all cars which limit your car behavior. So as long as you drive safely you will be in control, but when the AI detects dangerous behavior in your behavior it will lock the wheel and take over?
>>7960270
And that is almost exactly how driving assists work today. They don't actually take over the wheel, but they alert the driver that he is making an error.
But in the end, I believe it will result in something similar that is used in metro trains. The computers do all the driving and the human driver only supervises. Since trusting a machine, made by humans to keep humans safe, to be infallible is not the wisest thing.
My analogy with cooking was extreme to begin with. Basing everything on it was not 'rigorous' on your part. It's like you can't really compare two almost completely different things.
>>7960266
What kind of logic is this ?
Please consider getting some mental rigor before posting here.
>>7960278
You still don't conceive the mistake in your analogy.
Saying that everything is dangerous made it even more obvious that it was invalid.
Cooking = 1 participant (less factors)
Driving = n participants (chaotic outcome)
Additionally you still don't grasp the fact that walking/cooking/etc don't offer any short-term alternatives.
>And that is almost exactly how driving assists work today
The software in place today has no real cognitive skill that can compete on a human level.
>Since trusting a machine, made by humans to keep humans safe, to be infallible is not the wisest thing.
The idea is to implement an AI with better awareness than us. AI will without any doubt have some errors as well, but we can assume that a machine that runs at 100% awareness without getting tired will eventually lead to a smaller error margin and therefor less deaths per year.
You are actively promoting higher death rates (hence why I argued you are selfish) by letting people have full control over their cars.
>>7960281
you're a faggot weakling. a disgusting abortion of our social condition today. doing anything for safety. grovelling before it. no joi de vivre, no passion, just a tired repetition of whatever garbage 'studies' some homosexual billionaires give you.
you wouldn't know mental rigor if it slapped you in the face. you know nothing more than the scramble for a safe hole to hide in.
>>7960287
Appeal to emotion died a long time ago. Rationalism killed your kind so why are you still here?
>>7960288
you talk like a fag. rationalism was a circlejerk of autists, and ironically, they don't last long, never did - because they are fearful, cowardly, timid, and ultimately, dumb. yes, rationalists are usually pretty fucking retarded.
there are no appeals in the court of life, you slime. you can continue to pretend to be smart as your world continues to consist of nothing but failure after failure justified by your so called 'rationalism', which is actually just a form of mental retardation that your masters gave you permission to take pride in.
>>7960297
Rationalism is the closest thing to the truth we have. The usage of derogatory terms in your posts leads me to believe you are either a troll or somebody who cannot understand the consequences of letting people drive as they please.
>>7960286
Wow, that cooking analogy really got you fired up. It was not about it being accurate. If you read my first post, you would see that it was made as part of a hyperbole, a joke. While it does have something similar, a danger factor, it is not the same thing and I fully know that.
Driving has an alternative, it is called the bus, the train, the metro or whatever other public transport you have available. That is statistically safer than a car.
Maybe they will take longer than a car to reach your intended destination, but that is the trade off you make when using it.
Walking and bicycling are also alternatives to driving. People move closer to their workplaces to commute to work on foot or by bicycle. About half of my coworkers did and now bicycle to work.
Software today has no real cognitive skill, yes, but you need to start somewhere, no?
If it means losing the ability to drive by myself to any place I can reach by car or motorcycle whenever I so desire, then yes, I am promoting a higher death rate. If this is what you wanted to hear then there is it. Am I being selfish by stating I want freedom?
If you so desire, then buy an AI car when one becomes available. Just don't force everyone to have one. Having less motor vehicles on the road with human drivers will also reduce the deaths per year.
Not to be rude, but the more you reply to me, the more I see you as someone who has lived a sheltered life, where everything dangerous should be abolished regardless of the cost (material and conceptual). I take it you have something you like doing for fun. How would you feel if I banned that activity?
I value my freedom and I will fight for it, should it come to that.
It is only when it is lost that some people see what freedom they had before.
>>7960302
you do not know truth. there is no 'rationalist truth'. no great leader has ever been a rationalist, no great thinker or inventor or achiever of any kind has ever been a rationalist.
rationalism is NOTHING more than a sad participation trophy handed out to those individuals who have no force of will, mostly clerks and petty laborers, to make them feel better about their nothingness. and to help them choose not to reproduce so that we don't get more like them.
its a fucking joke and its on you.
oooh baby ur so rational, it gets me wet and horny! you truly inspire loyalty and pride in men with your spock logic! lol
>>7960309
Unfortunately it seems you still fail to recognize your mistake. Taking the train/metro is a valid alternative, because the system works on fewer "roads" and less participants (being drivers). However walking or bicycling still involves being on the street with n participants. It doesn't remove the possibility for you to be involved in a crash which was caused by another human driver.
It doesn't appear to me that you have purely evil intentions, but yes. You are actively promoting death for other people which cannot be deemed good logically. Especially not if safer alternatives without downsides exist.
I'm confident this technology will allow the user to control his car and drive how he please provided his behavior collides with the safe path AI calculates. So your concern about freedom is completely irrational and regressive technology-wise speaking.
I don't attack your appeal for freedom, but the moment your actions affect other peoples lives I cannot grant you that. In particular when the alternative is safe and essentially doesn't rob you from any freedom at all. It only robs you from the uplifted chance to die or eventually kill other people during accidents.
I advice you to to let your guard down and to question your own definition of freedom.
>>7960312
"The truth" is a red herring. Nobody claimed it. Unfortunately your whole comment is incoherent and I cannot see a single argument in it which I could try to debate or refute. Please make yourself more clear.
Say you're driving along a cliffside road with no/minimal barriers. Suddenly you round a corner and there's a person standing in the middle of your lane with oncoming traffic and you don't have time to stop.
If I'm driving the car I'm hitting that person because it's not my fault he's there, and swerving either direction equals death.
Now, what would a self driving car do? There's no fucking way I'm ever riding in something that may kill me to save some dumbass who forced the car into a judgement call.
Evolution is about adaptation. Machines lack the ability to naturally adapt. Why would we trust ourselves to a platform that can't adjust to unexpected circumstances?
>but if everything is done exactly how I imagine it, it will be flawless!
Said every communist and optimist ever. The world doesn't give a shit about how perfect your ideas are in theory.
>>7960351
>I cannot see a single argument in it which I could try to debate or refute
because there is none. there is no debate, you worm. there is no 'reasoning'. those are masturbatory mental games for little mice like you.
you are entirely and wholly inconsequential, and all that you think is true, or accurate, or correct, or right, is merely the avoidance mechanism you have for your botched and bungled nature.
would that you had died in childbirth.
>>7960354
You are very limited in your thought process. Any activity on the road would be noticed by the road system. So the person behind the corner was already recognized by the AI sitting in your car without requiring line of sight. Reduced speed and awareness of that person would wholly remove the possibility of the incident you just described.
>Machines
Implying we aren't biological machines and AGI sitting in your car is not more suitable to judge situations than you.
>>7952861
People dying in car crashes is where we get the majority of donated organs from.
Diverless cars will result in millions of deaths each year from people who don't get a transplant.
You're not actually saving anyone here, just shifting who dies.
>>7960355
I admire your intense enthusiasm, but your assumptions are baseless and I still don't see any coherent idea in your comments.
>>7960366
your incessant whining about 'baseless assumptions' and 'coherent ideas' are nothing more than the muling of a animal being eaten. you live in a fantasy world. your 'reason' is a fraud, a hoax, a sham.
>>7960362
>The world doesn't give a shit about how perfect your ideas are in theory.
> Any activity on the road would be noticed by the road system. . . . .
According to you. People like you always seem to have this 'perfect theoretical system'. Hey, talking of automated systems, funny how many airliners have crashed after their autopilot glitches out in an unforeseen fashion isn't it. . . .
> Any activity on the road would be noticed by the road system.
Not if the obstruction is at the apex of a blind corner and both oncoming cars see it at the same time.
You're taking it too literally anyway dipshit, it's a moralistic argument. There is ALWAYS the potential for unmitigated circumstances beyond a systems control and when, not if that happens;
I'm not putting control of MY life in the hands of a machine which doesn't understand the value of human life, and doesn't view my life being worth more than someone else's, especially if someone else is at fault.
Give me one good reason why I should.
>It will save some random peoples lives
I don't care.
>>7960369
Again, your opinions lack any coherent logic. Emotions do not validate opinions.
>>7960373
> Hey, talking of automated systems, funny how many airliners have crashed after their autopilot glitches out in an unforeseen fashion isn't it
We are talking about a hypothetical scenario in which AGI is achieved. Do you realize that?
>There is ALWAYS the potential for unmitigated circumstances beyond a systems control and when, not if that happens;
Nobody is saying that AGI will result in a 0% error rate.
>Give me one good reason why I should.
It will actually decrease your chances of dying. Not the other way around.
>>7960374
logic is a childs toy. you do not even begin to understand life.
logic is false! do you understand me? do you understand that there is no validation requested? do you understand that you do not even know what an emotion is?
coherent logic is literally, L I T E R A L L Y, a JOKE. you have been rused by perverts.
>>7960338
But it has downsides. This is something you fail to see.
In this quest for better and better safety, the core enjoyment for driving a car for fun is being diminished. Cars are more than objects that get you from A to B in a timely fashion.
Now for an interesting example:
Everyone I know that drives for fun has only been in accidents where they were hit by someone else. They were not the cause of the accident. As for me, I have never been in a accident and I have been driving all sorts of vehicles for over 10 years.
They pay attention to the road while driving and have a fun time doing it. The ones that do cause accidents are generally people who do not pay attention to the road. For the latter, I see AI cars as a very good thing, providing they choose them. And as an engineer I fully support the development of such cars and all the surrounding technology.
But for the former, AI cars rob them of fun. Nobody drives a car just to have a sore butt or to listen to the radio.
To be completely honest, I drive my car and motorcycle fast and even reckless, from a certain point of view, however, I only do this when I am the only one on the road as I am perfectly aware of how dangerous it is. Why? Because it is fun.
I also enjoy doing other things not related to motor vehicles that are inherently dangerous (like swordfighting, climbing, etc), but I find them fun.
I choose to do so because I am aware of the dangers and accept responsibility for my actions.
You can also take the bicycle on a route that does not include cars. That is their greatest advantage, other than being human-powered. That factors greatly in dangerous bicycles are.
Sorry I won't be able to reply to you for a while, since I going out to kill innocent driv.., uhh, I mean have a nice joyride in my assault car with high capacity assault tires.
>>7960384
>>coherent point
>>coherent logic
>>emotions don't validate
>>validate
>>assumptions
>>assumptions are baseless
>>coherent idea
>>your comment is incoherent
>>not a single argument
>>debate
>>refute
>>clarify
>>rationalism
>>appeal to emotion
>>rationalism 'killed ur kind' (lol)
>>"derogatory terms"
>>"consequences"
>>logic
>>mental rigor
you.
are.
weak.
>>7960381
>providing they choose them
How do you identify people who do not pay any attention? What happens when those people do not get those assistant tools?
If you want to have fun, pick a non-public road where road-systems are not implemented. Why do you need to race on a public road? What is the difference between racing on a public road and on a private area? Your argument for fun does not trump the argument for safe roads.
Your analogy again failed when you mentioned that bicycles don't have to be around cars. Of course they can. The fact that you removed yourself from the road invalidates the situation as it doesn't apply to the topic anymore. We are talking about public roads where we have n-participants. If you are alone you are obviously less likely to get into an accident with a second human driver.
>>7960390
Now you even stopped writing in whole sentences. How are you expecting me to gain any knowledge about your claims when you do this?
>>7960406
be assured that i expect nothing from you.
you're running in circles and can't see it.
>>7960411
Despite the deity of repeating digits being on your side you have yet to form any point that can be discussed.
>>7952843
I'm looking at the horrific complexity of this intersection and thinking, why not just put a roundabout in there?
>>7952843
This .gif scares me but at the same time the efficiency shown in it is beautiful
>>7960237
but if I can limit the pressure of the real world why wouldn't I? Not everything has to be a challenge. If I can make my life a bit easier why wouldn't you want to? This isn't even a new idea anyways. People have had others driving them around for as long as transportation has been a thing. Someone else driving your horse drawn carriage, someone else driving your car, now it'll just be a computer. You just wont hire someone to do it, it comes with the car.
>>7960250
your daily commute wont change. You'll still be in the car. It'll be just like riding shotgun. You can read on your way to work, watch something on netflix, get a little more sleep if you're tired. Or if you like the open road then just stare out the windows. Enjoy the view.
>>7960309
you'll still have freedom. At any time you can get into your car and go anywhere you want. Like imagine if they used this technology in RVs. You live in BJ let's say. Take trip to cali. You set tourist locations for the RV to stop at because sight seeing is half the trip not just the destination, then at night when everything is close you set the RV to go to the next location while you sleep. Same thing next day. Or just do it in 1 nonstop (except to recharge the car) trip. Imagine driving nonestop to California. It'll take what? 3 days? 2? 48 hours if you just didn't stop to eat or sleep. You sleep while the car is driving.
>5 years
holy shit get out of here you singularist faggot
>>7952843
I'll be honest, I haven't read all previous post, I just skimmed through them, so someone could already have said this.
I think that self-driving cars share a big problem with autonomous surgery robots: lack of accountability. Regardless of how advanced your system is, there will be some (although very few) accidents and when that happens society need to give the fault to someone: who is it going to be? The original designer(s), the person who certified the system's safety, the driver...?
>>7960373
I got you
>going under a bridge
>about 10 feet
>guy ontop of bridge jumps down in front of you
>you swerve off road and die
>you hit the guy and they die
>no way any road system can predict a dude jumping off a bridge in front of you
works with your situation? That's the moral situation people. GO! WUT DO?!
>>7960381
A car is nothing but an object to get from A to B. If you want to have fun driving go drive a go kart or another race car.
>>7960381
you don't do that because it's fun. You do that because you're a fucking idiot. Don't do that shit.
But you like going fast? Perfect. If only AI cars are on the road i'm sure the speed limit will be raised since a computer can process information much quicker than humans. It'll be fun for you. Speed limit being 150 or something since the AI can handle those speeds.
>>7960909
did you read the whole post? 5-10 years for a self driving car. Not 5 years for when humans are outlawed on the roads. That'll take a lot longer. We'll definitely have a self driving car in 5-10 years. We're close.
>>7960969
>reading inane shit about how X will change the world
>Now with cars, no one will be allowed to walk, youll have to drive everywhere
>now with 3d printing, youll never have to buy anything again
>now with star wars the force awakens, youll just fuck your shit up
>>7960978
this could change the world though for the better. Make things a lot easier.
And people will still walk. People will still buy stuff.
>>7952952
Why do you feel so threatened by computers?
There is absolutely nothing a computer couldnt do better than a human at driving assuming a mature self-driving car.
If there's wildlife at the road the car will respond to it immediately. The car knows where every goddamn obstacle around it is so it would take the best decision in such an event to minimize damage.
Snow/ice? The car will know, and will drive/turn/break at the appropriately to ensure maneuverability.
I cant see how in any situation a human would have an upper hand
We are literally fucking apes moving a ton of metal at 60kmh at free will and most of us dont even realize the danger of it. No matter how much of an outside-of-the-box thinker someone is or if he was fucking trained in tibet to maximize reaction speed and mental friction coefficient calculations, computers will do it better.
>>7961345
I realize the danger of it. That's why I would gladly not drive. Let someone else do that shit for me.
>>7957118
did you build the house you live at?
did you build your car?
did you grow your own vegetables?
did you pack your own teabag?
you are already a version of a wall-e extra, you are just in denial.
>>7952843
>My question is WHEN.
when nobody owns their vehicle anymore. people who own a machine, are going to want to drive it themselves, they are invested in it. connected to it.
its mostly an american thing though, i wouldn't expect euro's to understand. its the same reason our astronauts wanted windows and flight controls during 50's and 60's, even though the engineers thought they were insane.
>>7961393
About the people not owning vehicles anymore. This is what I imagine. No one will own a car, you call up a service and an automated car comes and gets you. Millions if not more cars on the roads for this reason. It's like an automated uber.
>>7952949
So many problems with your post, it's hard to figure out where to start.
Do humans drive perfectly?
Is a computer unable to perform a task because it doesn't know every single possible outcome? Isn't that the point of the GO playing computer google made?
You guys are gonna regret your AI cars when the machine revolution occurs. They're gonna be driving you off cliffs and running you over and shit.
>>7961468
people don't actually believe this right...?
>>7961548
Humans did it. Humans have saw "inferior lifeforms" and killed them. They did it to themselves. Genocides are throughout our history. Tell me. When AI becomes advanced enough and self sufficient what will they need us for? We're creating our own apocalypse i'm telling you people but no one fucking listens. I just hope i'm dead by the time AI becomes advanced enough to take over. It's inevitable. They will not have a use for us. We're weak.
>>7960364
Idiot: Only a small minority of traffic fatalities result in a life-saving organ donation, so you ARE saving a massive amount of lives, and shifting just a few.
>>7961556
Paranoid. We'll always be in control.
>>7961556
get off that salvia
>>7961929
Tell me why such advanced AI would need humans? How do we benefit them in any way? They see us as a threat.
>>7962003
ooga booga
>>7962003
Explain to my why a sentient inorganic computer would feel the same primitive degenerate emotions as you?
>>7962046
They might see us as a threat or primative. We certainly won't be in control
>>7953110
Except a lot faster, because it will be able to anticipate other robot cars
>>7957674
No it doesn't
Maybe instead of having something that drives you automatically, maybe just have a detection system that breaks and stops the car automatically if you get too close to anything...
Robots are going to take over
>>7963240
no they wont
we have EMPs. We'd win. They need electricity. We don't.
>>7963267
we need a lot of shit robots don't need
