Author Topic: Self-Driving Cars  (Read 47905 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1170 on: February 23, 2017, 09:31:45 PM »
Did you read the article.  Its precisely the reason Ford doesn't want to make a level 3:

"Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition," McBride said."

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5670
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1171 on: February 24, 2017, 02:32:17 AM »
Did you read the article.  Its precisely the reason Ford doesn't want to make a level 3:

"Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition," McBride said."

Yes, but I only read what was written, I didn't add my words. Nowhere does he suggest the car would shift control to the driver as you suggested.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1172 on: February 24, 2017, 06:42:37 AM »
Did you read the article.  Its precisely the reason Ford doesn't want to make a level 3:

"Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition," McBride said."

Yes, but I only read what was written, I didn't add my words. Nowhere does he suggest the car would shift control to the driver as you suggested.

So you mean maybe it would just make a friendly suggestion, ("I really feel this would be in your best interest to take over right at this moment! Like right NOW would be better than later, I am just saying. If I was you I wouldn't delay much longer my friend. I am, not joking...!")

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5670
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1173 on: February 24, 2017, 11:18:33 AM »
Did you read the article.  Its precisely the reason Ford doesn't want to make a level 3:

"Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition," McBride said."

Yes, but I only read what was written, I didn't add my words. Nowhere does he suggest the car would shift control to the driver as you suggested.

So you mean maybe it would just make a friendly suggestion, ("I really feel this would be in your best interest to take over right at this moment! Like right NOW would be better than later, I am just saying. If I was you I wouldn't delay much longer my friend. I am, not joking...!")

Nope. The idea is not that the car would say, "I'm sorry, I can't go do that, Dave"

The idea is that the car would do all the work on the freeways and main roads, but when you get to unimproved roads or one lane roads, unmapped roads, long driveways, roads with lots of non-vehicular traffic or dirt roads, the human would take control.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline Morvis13

  • Big Ol' Goober
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 22279
  • Natural Source of Paranoia
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1174 on: February 28, 2017, 10:52:46 PM »
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Morvis' Law: Anything that does go wrong is my fault.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1175 on: March 01, 2017, 08:54:56 AM »
So, the video asks the question, how to deal with the moral dilemma that autonomous cars are going to face, in the face of choosing what type of accident to have or avoid?

And the answer in the video?  The answer is: Never mind, that is not the important question, because, well, people already die in accidents now.  Seriously, that was their answer.

The entire video is really just a quick promotional plea for more autonomous cars.  Including the extremely dubious and misleading claim that airplanes that are flown on autopilot have been shown to be safer than those flown by pilots.  That is a load of bunk, because there is no direct comparison that can and has been made, because airlines limit what they allow the autopilot to do. And furthermore most of what the autopilot is allowed to do is decided by the pilot themselves, who give all sorts of instructions to the computer about what types of settings to use, and where and how to fly. 

Pure science propaganda.   

Offline Morvis13

  • Big Ol' Goober
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 22279
  • Natural Source of Paranoia
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1176 on: March 01, 2017, 09:38:39 AM »
Yeah. Code the car to take out the SUV. In that RARE event we MIGHT have a couple injuries. The biggest payoff will be in removing the human error and reducing the death toll by a magnitude. The more autonomous cars we have the less likely an accident will even occur.
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Morvis' Law: Anything that does go wrong is my fault.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1177 on: March 30, 2017, 12:33:39 PM »


An American Airlines co-pilot died during landing, and this is scary:

"Luckily for the passengers and crew aboard the American Airlines Boeing 737 flight, a safe landing was achieved by the able-bodied captain. CNN reports that Boeing 737 planes can be safely landed by a single crew member, although that circumstance is not ideal."

Its interesting what the article DOESN'T say.  It doesn't say, "Luckily the Boeing 737 can be safely landed on autopilot..."

Hmm, I guess you guys better still plan on waiting a while. 

 





https://www.yahoo.com/style/american-airlines-co-pilot-died-143945834.html

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5574
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1178 on: March 30, 2017, 02:41:21 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Too bad they don't explain that autoland is -why- the 737 only requires one crew member to land safely.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1179 on: March 30, 2017, 04:44:22 PM »
So Phooey still thinks that 30,000 dead by human error is better than 3,000 dead by computers being unable to make moral decisions, even though in the real world, humans do not make moral decisions in the fraction of a second available before an accident.

Computers will reduce deaths and injuries by an order of magnitude, even without being able to make moral decisions. But until they can make those moral decisions, Phooey would rather we continue to kill 30,000 people a year and injure hundreds of thousands more.

Yes, computers cannot make moral decisions. But what they can do is react a thousand times faster than a human can. Hit the SUV, or hit the motorcycle? The answer: The computer will not need to hit either because it will see the danger long before the human driver sees it, and will react instantaneously.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1180 on: March 30, 2017, 08:59:35 PM »
 :) :) :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Too bad they don't explain that autoland is -why- the 737 only requires one crew member to land safely.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5283
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1181 on: March 30, 2017, 09:39:11 PM »
Its interesting what the article DOESN'T say.  It doesn't say, "Luckily the Boeing 737 can be safely landed on autopilot..."
That would be because the Boeing 737 wasn't safely landed on autopilot. It was safely landed by the pilot, with assistance from a computer.

Why would the article say that it was safely landed on autopilot when it wasn't?

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1182 on: March 30, 2017, 10:05:58 PM »
Its interesting what the article DOESN'T say.  It doesn't say, "Luckily the Boeing 737 can be safely landed on autopilot..."
That would be because the Boeing 737 wasn't safely landed on autopilot. It was safely landed by the pilot, with assistance from a computer.

Why would the article say that it was safely landed on autopilot when it wasn't?

Phooey's point is that a computer cannot land a plane, therefore a computer cannot drive a car. A complete non-sequitur. Again, he'd rather see 30,000 people killed by human drivers than one person killed by a computer.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5283
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1183 on: March 30, 2017, 10:12:57 PM »
Its interesting what the article DOESN'T say.  It doesn't say, "Luckily the Boeing 737 can be safely landed on autopilot..."
That would be because the Boeing 737 wasn't safely landed on autopilot. It was safely landed by the pilot, with assistance from a computer.

Why would the article say that it was safely landed on autopilot when it wasn't?

Phooey's point is that a computer cannot land a plane, therefore a computer cannot drive a car. A complete non-sequitur. Again, he'd rather see 30,000 people killed by human drivers than one person killed by a computer.

Right, but he was pointing out that the article didn't say that something that didn't happen happened. The article also didn't say that a twelve-foot cobra wrapped itself around the third passenger on the left, but to point that out would make about as much sense.

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5574
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1184 on: March 30, 2017, 10:42:37 PM »
Its interesting what the article DOESN'T say.  It doesn't say, "Luckily the Boeing 737 can be safely landed on autopilot..."
That would be because the Boeing 737 wasn't safely landed on autopilot. It was safely landed by the pilot, with assistance from a computer.

Why would the article say that it was safely landed on autopilot when it wasn't?

Phooey's point is that a computer cannot land a plane, therefore a computer cannot drive a car. A complete non-sequitur. Again, he'd rather see 30,000 people killed by human drivers than one person killed by a computer.

It's a silly point because computers can and do land planes. We have planes that are entirely computer piloted. I hate to trash talk Boeing, but the major functional difference is that Boeing programming leaves things more to the pilot, while a similar Airbus jet will override the pilot under certain ciorcumstances.

A single pilot could not land the 737 unless there were a series of computers doing things like keeping straight, maintaining attitude, regulating engine function, and so on. The existence of the autoland procedure completely debunks the idea that a computer can't land a plane. It's just that in this incident, it was reported as a single pilot landing the plane in much the same way that a single pilot is flying a plane when autopilot is maintaining the course.
HIISSSSSSSS