EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 515
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44428 Posts
| ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey781 Posts
in my dream I feel very strongly about something, but right after I wake up I don't feel anything like in dream I feel very hungry, I'm attacking food stuffing them in my mouth without breathing, but when I wake up I am hardly any hungry in dream I miss my parents very much, like I don't see them for years (we live separate and see eachother every 2-3 months) but when I wake up I don't even bother calling them is there something broken in my head? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 16 2016 02:28 OtherWorld wrote: I do not trust human-driven cars. I personally wouldn't trust a human-driven car with my life, much less that of others. Does that make human-driven cars "illegible as mandatory for public roads" ? If you want to put your life in the hands of a crappy computer on a literally daily basis then that's your prerogative. I personally won't do it. Computers are not aware of potential dangers such as knowing that some intersections are more dangerous than others, computers are totally reliant on their sensors and above all they are not doted with common sense, unlike humans. Look at Paris-Rio AF447. Fucking scumbag idiots totally reliant on computer technology and unable to apply basic common sense. They are dangerous. The more you lessen the role of the human being in the control of the machine, the more complacent they get. The more complacent they are, the shittier they're going to be in emergency situations. Technology should be used to help give humans a better understanding of their situation and act as tools to help the human do their job better. They shouldn't entirely replace the human, not now, not ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm The overall trend of the airline industry is getting better and better and this is not counting that there is more and more air transportation. These numbers are getting better because of the very rigorous regulation around aircraft and the training of personnel. The overall trend is very positive and there isn't a single aircraft manufacturer out there who is developing an aircraft which doesn't need a co-pilot, much less the captain. AI however is being developed to make pilot work easier (auto-throttle, navigation, etc.). That's the right way to do things. That is why I'm personally never going to use AI to transport myself in outside environments, not in a car, not in an aircraft. If you're that unsure about your driving ability, then take public transportation. If we were talking about something on rails, which is obviously what you would want if you're dealing with automated transportation (think subway), then sure fine. It's a good idea. There's a limit on the amount of crap which can go wrong in a subway. No wild animals or weather conditions or other dumbfuckery. The environment is very closed off which makes AI acceptable. This hard-on that people have for AI almost entirely comes from people who don't know what humans actually do. They actually sit there and assume that medicinal chemists can be replaced with AI which will somehow figure out how to make tomorrow's medicine. They think that airline pilots are basically overpaid bus-drivers. Fuck that, it's insulting to even bus-drivers to think that their work is easy, driving a bus or any heavy vehicle is difficult enough in itself. Telsa itself says "please keep an eye on the road when the car is driving itself" which basically means that Telsa doesn't trust its own crappy technology yet. People way overstate the ability of AI and underestimate the ability of human beings. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On October 16 2016 16:18 KwarK wrote: I think requiring someone to prove they're not drunk before starting a car is no more onerous than requiring someone to obtain a license before driving. The difficulty is in implementation, not in intrusiveness. If the technology is cheap and readily available I can't see any advantage of leaving it out. Accuracy is the only major stumbling block I can think of. You'd have to ensure a false positive rate of incredibly close to 0, and I'm not sure that's possible at a reasonable price. Anything other than a false positive rate of very near 0 means a significant number of sober people will be prohibited from driving by their breathalyzer, which would be unacceptable imho. But fiwifaki's arguments are beyond stupid. You already don't have the right to drive drunk. It's against the law. All breathalyzers do is ensure you don't break the law and put other people in danger with your law breaking, rather than punish people post hoc. And at the cost of having to breathe into a tube before your case starts, which is a tiny downside to the large benefit of reducing innocent deaths. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On October 16 2016 16:50 mantequilla wrote: does this happen to you too: in my dream I feel very strongly about something, but right after I wake up I don't feel anything like in dream I feel very hungry, I'm attacking food stuffing them in my mouth without breathing, but when I wake up I am hardly any hungry in dream I miss my parents very much, like I don't see them for years (we live separate and see eachother every 2-3 months) but when I wake up I don't even bother calling them is there something broken in my head? Clearly you're broken. Are you still under warranty? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12073 Posts
On October 16 2016 14:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: We already have a system where people don't have to drive their car. Its called public and private transportation. People drive cars anyway because they want to break the speed limit, swerve dangerously, and have personal control of their destiny. Making things self driving will not stop people wanting those freedoms. I don't think that is the reason why people drive. In my experience, people drive because it brings them from exactly the starting point they want, to exactly the end point they want to be at, at exactly the time they want to go there. Furthermore, it allows them to transport objects of medium size and weight very easily. As someone that does not own a car, the latter is my main problem. It is a large hassle to get rid of, for example, and old mattress, by using public transportation. And the other people i know use driving as an utility that is more comfortable than public transportation, not as something that is fun for the sake of it. I am pretty sure most would swap to self-driving cars if those are effective enough. Except for perhaps my mother, who gets sick whenever anyone else drives the car she is in. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12073 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 16 2016 20:01 Simberto wrote: I don't think that is the reason why people drive. In my experience, people drive because it brings them from exactly the starting point they want, to exactly the end point they want to be at, at exactly the time they want to go there. Furthermore, it allows them to transport objects of medium size and weight very easily. As someone that does not own a car, the latter is my main problem. It is a large hassle to get rid of, for example, and old mattress, by using public transportation. And the other people i know use driving as an utility that is more comfortable than public transportation, not as something that is fun for the sake of it. I am pretty sure most would swap to self-driving cars if those are effective enough. Except for perhaps my mother, who gets sick whenever anyone else drives the car she is in. Precisely, there are many reasons for which private transportation is very important to many people. I wouldn't swap to a self-driving car though, it'd be very uncomfortable for me. I already dislike being in vehicles driven by others, so I can't imagine having no one at the wheel. | ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On October 16 2016 20:29 Incognoto wrote: Precisely, there are many reasons for which private transportation is very important to many people. I wouldn't swap to a self-driving car though, it'd be very uncomfortable for me. I already dislike being in vehicles driven by others, so I can't imagine having no one at the wheel. I would swap from my car to a self-driving vehicle, aslong I can take controll over whenever I want. Because both sides are right, you drive your car to get where you want, with whatever object (of medium size) you want in the hopefully shortest time possible. But personally I also drive because it gives a feeling and is fun. So let the car drive the boring way to work and back, in which I can read news or do other stuff then driving and wasting my time, while let me drive when I want to. I see great use for self-driving cars. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18874 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 16 2016 20:29 Incognoto wrote: Precisely, there are many reasons for which private transportation is very important to many people. I wouldn't swap to a self-driving car though, it'd be very uncomfortable for me. I already dislike being in vehicles driven by others, so I can't imagine having no one at the wheel. A person drives because he has the resources and space to have a car and can drive it to a location which, with heavy support from government and private industries, provides him a space to place that car when he arrives. Banning all cars and switching to 100% public transportation has advantages like removal of all parking lots, parking zones, and parking related structures, it can also shrink down road widths allowing for a higher concentration of structures to be used, buses/trains can then be made taller, leaner, and more efficient, their routes less congested by traffic, and an increased efficiency in how movement happens. The reduced cars will decrease pollution, regulation on air pollution becomes easier to implement, etc... All positives. The only reason for personal cars is because people are selfish and would rather watch the world burn than have to ride with other people at regulated speeds. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On October 16 2016 20:22 Cascade wrote: I had no idea self-driving cars were this controversial! :o Some people think vaccines are bad. No surprise some people think AI cars are bad. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On October 17 2016 01:43 Thieving Magpie wrote: A person drives because he has the resources and space to have a car and can drive it to a location which, with heavy support from government and private industries, provides him a space to place that car when he arrives. Banning all cars and switching to 100% public transportation has advantages like removal of all parking lots, parking zones, and parking related structures, it can also shrink down road widths allowing for a higher concentration of structures to be used, buses/trains can then be made taller, leaner, and more efficient, their routes less congested by traffic, and an increased efficiency in how movement happens. The reduced cars will decrease pollution, regulation on air pollution becomes easier to implement, etc... All positives. The only reason for personal cars is because people are selfish and would rather watch the world burn than have to ride with other people at regulated speeds. let me guess: you don't live in the countryside? | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On October 16 2016 17:19 Incognoto wrote: If you want to put your life in the hands of a crappy computer on a literally daily basis then that's your prerogative. I personally won't do it. Everyday, you put your life into the hands of crappy things, and most of them are done by humans. I live in a city in which a balcony broke down yesterday, killing 4 people in the process. That's most likely beause of shitty balcony construction. Do you think the plans were made by "crappy computers" and the decision to go for low-cost stuff made by "crappy computers"? No, they were made by "crappy humans". Computers are not aware of potential dangers such as knowing that some intersections are more dangerous than others, computers are totally reliant on their sensors and above all they are not doted with common sense, unlike humans. Computers are just as aware as humans. If you tell him that intersection X is more dangerous, he'll take it into account. Just like a human : when you drive on a road you don't know, you're totally reliant on your senses (and mostly sight, while computers can use plenty of other things), and you can't know intersection X is dangerous. Oh, and common sense? Surely you mean the common sense that make people drive right behind my rear bumper, yet not overtake me when they can, thus putting both of us at risk of death in case I have to brake suddenly? Or the same common sense that makes people change line right in front of you on a highway because they really wanted to overtake that truck before you did, even though you were coming 20 km/h faster than them? Or the common sense that makes people read SMSs while driving (or even worse, answer them)? Yeah, common sense is great. Common sense also told us that a car would obliterate if above 50 km/h, once. Common sense also used to tell us that you had to make ill people bleed to heal them. Great, right? If you're that unsure about your driving ability, then take public transportation. And what if I'm unsure about others' driving ability? If we were talking about something on rails, which is obviously what you would want if you're dealing with automated transportation (think subway), then sure fine. It's a good idea. There's a limit on the amount of crap which can go wrong in a subway. No wild animals or weather conditions or other dumbfuckery. The environment is very closed off which makes AI acceptable. Yes, that's why trains kill more people than planes. Right. Fyi, the number of death per billion passenger-miles for planes is 0.07 ; 0.43 for trains ; and 7.3 for cars. You can clearly see the AI-dominated aircraft transportation is much more deadly than your heroic humans driving cars with their common sense. This hard-on that people have for AI almost entirely comes from people who don't know what humans actually do. They actually sit there and assume that medicinal chemists can be replaced with AI which will somehow figure out how to make tomorrow's medicine. They think that airline pilots are basically overpaid bus-drivers. Fuck that, it's insulting to even bus-drivers to think that their work is easy, driving a bus or any heavy vehicle is difficult enough in itself. Telsa itself says "please keep an eye on the road when the car is driving itself" which basically means that Telsa doesn't trust its own crappy technology yet. People way overstate the ability of AI and underestimate the ability of human beings. "This hard-on that people have for printing press entirely comes from people who don't know what humans actually do. They actually sit there and assume that monks can be replaced with printing press which will somehow figure out how to copy a book several times." | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 16 2016 14:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: We already have a system where people don't have to drive their car. Its called public and private transportation. People drive cars anyway because they want to break the speed limit, swerve dangerously, and have personal control of their destiny. Making things self driving will not stop people wanting those freedoms. Honestly, if you don't know what you're talking about, which you don't, you're better off not saying anything, and listening to others instead. It's a thread for stupid questions, not declarations. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
On October 17 2016 02:13 Hryul wrote: let me guess: you don't live in the countryside? Indeed. Public transport can take up to 3 times as long for me to get from A to B while not being cheap either. But I guess I am selfish and would rather see the world burn. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 17 2016 02:25 OtherWorld wrote: Too full of slippery slopes and straw-men (I mean the printing press analogy is completely irrelevant for example), so I'll just snip out this piece Fyi, the number of death per billion passenger-miles for planes is 0.07 ; 0.43 for trains ; and 7.3 for cars. You can clearly see the AI-dominated aircraft transportation is much more deadly than your heroic humans driving cars with their common sense. AI dominated aircraft transportation? Do you even know what happens in the cockpit and the amount of training airline pilots go through? Lol. Proper training regimens and use of AI to help supplement humans is what helps. AF447 crashed because of shitty pilots who were too reliant on auto-pilot to understand how to get out of a stall. On the other hand competent pilots who understand how to actually damn fly are able to save lives in dangerous situations. Your argument is based on ignorance. It's humans who are subject to strict regulations and thorough training who are in charge of aircraft maintenance, air traffic control, training for pilots (check-rides, instruction, etc.), redundancy (co-pilot), etc. It's humans who are making air travel as safe as it is, not AI. To say otherwise is flat out insulting to the people who invest time and energy into doing their job right and making safety a top concern. Everything is done by human hand, recorded rigorously and subject to strict regulation. On October 17 2016 02:53 RvB wrote: Indeed. Public transport can take up to 3 times as long for me to get from A to B while not being cheap either. But I guess I am selfish and would rather see the world burn. Public transport vs private transport isn't really the issue being debated here, it's AI, I guess. But public transport is still absolute shit compared to private transportation. France is supposed to be a premiere country in terms of public transit and they're shit at moving people around. I regularly transit between Brittany and the Parisian region, the car is both faster and cheaper than the TGV. It's a little more than 5 hours by car (door to door) and it costs roughly ~50€ (between toll and diesel), you can take a large amount of luggage and 4 people comfortably. 4 people in TGV is basically €120 per person and limited luggage capacity, taking well more than 6 hours door to door. Not everyone lives in big cities, I have lived most of my life in mostly rural (maybe sub-urban) areas. For people like me, the absolute only valid method of transportation is the car. I have siblings who go to school which is at a 15 minute drive by car and more than an hour by bus. When I went to school, the bus would take 1h20 for a trip which can be finished in a 20 minute drive. Transit to university? Same thing. It's a 20-25 minute drive but using transportation (bus and train) I'm at almost 2 hours. Also my car doesn't go on strike. If we're talking strictly cities, then yes it's better to not use your car. I would never take my car to go to Paris, I would usually take it to go to a train station and then go to Paris. I don't drive a big car or an expensive car. I have a car and use it for its sole purpose: moving around. I have talked to other people. Private transportation is generally faster and cheaper. There are a few instances where it broke even. | ||
| ||
