|
On October 17 2016 02:13 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 01:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 16 2016 20:29 Incognoto wrote:On October 16 2016 20:01 Simberto wrote: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. 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. let me guess: you don't live in the countryside?
When I lived in the countryside the main forms of transportation was on foot, cows, and private/public transportation. If you were rich you'd have a horse, if you were from a well off family several would share a motorcycle. And if you were of the upper class you'd have a car.
How about yourself?
|
On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm?
Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment?
The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home.
But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing.
|
^I dunno if you take public transportation very often, but to me people don't like taking them purely because they're public, as in, you have no privacy. They're often overcrowded. You often have to stand up, and if you're lucky enough to have a seat, it's not a comfy leather seat you can set up to your liking. You may run into people you know, which forces you to take your headphones off and do small talk while you didn't want to see that guy today. You have to be in close proximity with smelly people, who might stare at you and render you uneasy. Because of the lack of personal space, you're afraid that your bag might be stolen by someone. If you text someone, you're 99% the guy behind you will be eyeing your conversation ; and because public transports are made for transport and not for comfort, there's literally no way you can realistically do productive work with your laptop or something. Of course, because it's public, you can't scratch your balls or anything considered too dirty to be done in public. And since all these points make everyone taking public transports angry, the general atmosphere inside is tense and not engaging.
This is what makes people hate public transports. Independently of speed, would you rather have a 30 minutes commute in (a) a comfy leather seat, with adjustable AC and/or heater, and no one around you or (b) a noisy, smelly, possibly too cold or too hot bus, with a strange guy staring at you and 6 people per m² ?
|
On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing.
The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver.
Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances.
If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports.
edit
As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand.
|
On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing.
I'm not in the mood to do the research, as others already have, but there is a money factor you are conveniently ignoring, as well as speed(even at the speed limit). It's almost always faster and cheaper to run private transportation over public(and this is ignoring the fact that it's public and crowded, which people also don't like). In the end, pragmatism wins. It's really not that hard. Saying I want to watch the world burn, because I choose the most practical form of transportation available to me, is so flagrantly ignorant/agenda-driven that I was convinced you were a troll at first. Educate yourself.
|
On October 17 2016 06:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. I'm not in the mood to do the research, as others already have, but there is a money factor you are conveniently ignoring, as well as speed(even at the speed limit). It's almost always faster and cheaper to run private transportation over public(and this is ignoring the fact that it's public and crowded, which people also don't like). In the end, pragmatism wins. It's really not that hard. Saying I want to watch the world burn, because I choose the most practical form of transportation available to me, is so flagrantly ignorant/agenda-driven that I was convinced you were a troll at first. Educate yourself.
It is more expensive to have personal cars or taxis than stp simply ban all cars and have a public transport system. Not wanting to deal with the lower classes is not an argument for having robot drivers as much as it is revealing of your elitist tendencies.
|
On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand.
If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology.
Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings.
|
On October 17 2016 06:32 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand. If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology. Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings.
I agree with you in principle but it is currently socially unacceptable to too many people. They have a small summer place outside the city. Live far from work. Live in areas that aren't suitable since you might have 1km to the closest neighbour and so on.
The only easy solution I see is making cities forbid personal cars. There it is possible to use public transport without major shifts on where people live. Having parking houses at the entrance to the city area and a public transport centre to get into the city. Think how airports currently do it.
|
On October 17 2016 06:32 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand. If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology. Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings.
Not really. Noone likes to be around people at all times. Sometimes, being alone is simply more relaxing. And from my experience, public transportation, even in the areas where it is quite good, is simply not as comfortable as private in a lot of situations. And that is coming from someone who uses basically only public transportation due to money issues.
And i can very reasonably imagine time in a self-driving car being productive or relaxing time. Time in public transportation, at least unless you majorly overhaul the whole thing, is usually wasted at best.
I assume we are not talking about some possible high-end public transportation, but roughly what is going on right now?
And i am not certain why you are this angry at people not wishing to constantly be around people. I like people (Well, some of them), but i am still constantly slightly on edge when around people i don't know well enough to have a good read on the situation. And sometimes i just need some peace and quiet. Yet you state that whoever wishes to not interact with other people constantly is selfish. I do not agree with this assessment.
Edit: For a purely public transportation system to be acceptable to a majority of people, it would need to be as good as current private transportation, which means taking you from your door to wherever you want to go, without a need to swap trains three times, or walk 1km to get there from the last station. It needs to take you there when you want to go, not every 15 minutes whenever it wants to drive. And it needs to allow you to transport whatever goods you want, up to small furniture. Currently, public transportation does neither, and i think that any public system that actually fulfills these criteria would require AI driven somethings, or be prohibitively expensive if it is basically just gigantic amount of taxi cabs.
|
On October 17 2016 08:00 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 06:32 TMagpie wrote:On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand. If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology. Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings. Not really. Noone likes to be around people at all times. Sometimes, being alone is simply more relaxing. And from my experience, public transportation, even in the areas where it is quite good, is simply not as comfortable as private in a lot of situations. And that is coming from someone who uses basically only public transportation due to money issues. And i can very reasonably imagine time in a self-driving car being productive or relaxing time. Time in public transportation, at least unless you majorly overhaul the whole thing, is usually wasted at best. I assume we are not talking about some possible high-end public transportation, but roughly what is going on right now? And i am not certain why you are this angry at people not wishing to constantly be around people. I like people (Well, some of them), but i am still constantly slightly on edge when around people i don't know well enough to have a good read on the situation. And sometimes i just need some peace and quiet. Yet you state that whoever wishes to not interact with other people constantly is selfish. I do not agree with this assessment. Edit: For a purely public transportation system to be acceptable to a majority of people, it would need to be as good as current private transportation, which means taking you from your door to wherever you want to go, without a need to swap trains three times, or walk 1km to get there from the last station. It needs to take you there when you want to go, not every 15 minutes whenever it wants to drive. And it needs to allow you to transport whatever goods you want, up to small furniture. Currently, public transportation does neither, and i think that any public system that actually fulfills these criteria would require AI driven somethings, or be prohibitively expensive if it is basically just gigantic amount of taxi cabs.
The issue is not with AI, it's with the dishonesty of the argument.
Saving energy, saving the planet, saving lives--we already have that option through making public transportation better funded and the focus of city design.
AI drivers is purely for luxury, not efficiency. It is dishonest otherwise. It's because people are imagining they can finally have their own chauffeurs like the rich and famous have to drive them around with the assumption that this luxury item will be prices for the general populace.
I am saying the service of an automated vehicle is already present to people. Whether it's hiring a butler, using Uber, or taking the train. What is being asked for is not an automated system, what is being asked for is a dehumanized system under the guise of progress.
If people were just honest and called this what it is, which is a luxury good, then we wouldn't have a problem.
|
On October 17 2016 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 08:00 Simberto wrote:On October 17 2016 06:32 TMagpie wrote:On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand. If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology. Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings. Not really. Noone likes to be around people at all times. Sometimes, being alone is simply more relaxing. And from my experience, public transportation, even in the areas where it is quite good, is simply not as comfortable as private in a lot of situations. And that is coming from someone who uses basically only public transportation due to money issues. And i can very reasonably imagine time in a self-driving car being productive or relaxing time. Time in public transportation, at least unless you majorly overhaul the whole thing, is usually wasted at best. I assume we are not talking about some possible high-end public transportation, but roughly what is going on right now? And i am not certain why you are this angry at people not wishing to constantly be around people. I like people (Well, some of them), but i am still constantly slightly on edge when around people i don't know well enough to have a good read on the situation. And sometimes i just need some peace and quiet. Yet you state that whoever wishes to not interact with other people constantly is selfish. I do not agree with this assessment. Edit: For a purely public transportation system to be acceptable to a majority of people, it would need to be as good as current private transportation, which means taking you from your door to wherever you want to go, without a need to swap trains three times, or walk 1km to get there from the last station. It needs to take you there when you want to go, not every 15 minutes whenever it wants to drive. And it needs to allow you to transport whatever goods you want, up to small furniture. Currently, public transportation does neither, and i think that any public system that actually fulfills these criteria would require AI driven somethings, or be prohibitively expensive if it is basically just gigantic amount of taxi cabs. The issue is not with AI, it's with the dishonesty of the argument. Saving energy, saving the planet, saving lives--we already have that option through making public transportation better funded and the focus of city design. AI drivers is purely for luxury, not efficiency. It is dishonest otherwise. It's because people are imagining they can finally have their own chauffeurs like the rich and famous have to drive them around with the assumption that this luxury item will be prices for the general populace. I am saying the service of an automated vehicle is already present to people. Whether it's hiring a butler, using Uber, or taking the train. What is being asked for is not an automated system, what is being asked for is a dehumanized system under the guise of progress. If people were just honest and called this what it is, which is a luxury good, then we wouldn't have a problem.
There is only one reason to advocate for automated vehicles. Efficiency. I don't see how you can argue that that isn't the case. If it was not a theoretically more efficient option then commercial vehicle manufacturers (trucks, buses etc) would not be pursuing it since their customers use a cost/benefit spreadsheet when deciding if they buy your vehicle or not.
http://www.thetruckersreport.com/infographics/cost-of-trucking/ (Figures are roughly the same in all reports so just linking one.)
Automating a vehicle would remove 26% of costs (the driver). Then as far as I know (don't have current figures) the cost of the vehicle would be offset by less fuel usage due to better drivers on average. The best human drivers would use less fuel than the automatic vehicles the first 2-3 generations but would still cost too much compared to the savings they give. New drivers would not be worth hiring since they require a salary and drive worse than the vehicle.
Of course this is far away since the first generations will require a driver in the vehicle. This driver can then do something else that generates revenue while sitting there. Considering a lot of areas has good mobile coverage then anything that uses a tablet or laptop is possible.
As for actual personal vehicles there you can replace taxi drivers in a lot of cases. Then shared car pools become realistic since you can book the car to be at your door at a certain time. One minor way to reduce environmental impact while having minor impact on people's lives.
Third efficiency is still less accidents, thus requiring less vehicle replacements and less people in hospitals. You will sadly not get people to get rid of their cars any time soon. Work with what is possible in steps towards your goals. Only in a dictatorship would it be possible to ban privately owned cars since it is a status symbol that very often saves people time.
As I see it the core of your argument is that more people should use public transport. Which I agree with. That is in no way related to automated vehicles since that is like improving fuel efficiency or adding another safety feature such as air bags to the vehicle. It has nothing to do with how many can fit in it or how often it drives a route. If anything it could decrease the cost a person pays to go by taxi, buss, train or other methods where you don't own the vehicle and thus promote them.
|
Ok, so as this discussion doesn't die out, let's at least get some new angles. 
As the automatic cars gradually take over the roads (let's assume they do), does that mean that the few human drivers still around can run red lights completely safely as the automated cars will reliably identify the risk? What if you hit the one other human driver doing the same thing?
Will there still be traffic police when it's almost all automated cars?
If there is a flaw in the AI algorithm that doesn't properly spot the human driver running the red light, and the human gets hit by the AI, will the AI get sued for killing the human, despite the human running the red light?
Will there even be red lights when we only have automated cars?
Will traffic actually slow down in practice as humans (pedestrians, bicycles, human drivers) feel safe being increasingly reckless and just crossing streets where they shouldn't? Will going in the automated cars actually be really uncomfortable as it regularly has to do sudden maneuvers to avoid the now-reckless humans?
|
On October 17 2016 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 08:00 Simberto wrote:On October 17 2016 06:32 TMagpie wrote:On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand. If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology. Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings. Not really. Noone likes to be around people at all times. Sometimes, being alone is simply more relaxing. And from my experience, public transportation, even in the areas where it is quite good, is simply not as comfortable as private in a lot of situations. And that is coming from someone who uses basically only public transportation due to money issues. And i can very reasonably imagine time in a self-driving car being productive or relaxing time. Time in public transportation, at least unless you majorly overhaul the whole thing, is usually wasted at best. I assume we are not talking about some possible high-end public transportation, but roughly what is going on right now? And i am not certain why you are this angry at people not wishing to constantly be around people. I like people (Well, some of them), but i am still constantly slightly on edge when around people i don't know well enough to have a good read on the situation. And sometimes i just need some peace and quiet. Yet you state that whoever wishes to not interact with other people constantly is selfish. I do not agree with this assessment. Edit: For a purely public transportation system to be acceptable to a majority of people, it would need to be as good as current private transportation, which means taking you from your door to wherever you want to go, without a need to swap trains three times, or walk 1km to get there from the last station. It needs to take you there when you want to go, not every 15 minutes whenever it wants to drive. And it needs to allow you to transport whatever goods you want, up to small furniture. Currently, public transportation does neither, and i think that any public system that actually fulfills these criteria would require AI driven somethings, or be prohibitively expensive if it is basically just gigantic amount of taxi cabs. The issue is not with AI, it's with the dishonesty of the argument. Saving energy, saving the planet, saving lives--we already have that option through making public transportation better funded and the focus of city design. AI drivers is purely for luxury, not efficiency. It is dishonest otherwise. It's because people are imagining they can finally have their own chauffeurs like the rich and famous have to drive them around with the assumption that this luxury item will be prices for the general populace. I am saying the service of an automated vehicle is already present to people. Whether it's hiring a butler, using Uber, or taking the train. What is being asked for is not an automated system, what is being asked for is a dehumanized system under the guise of progress. If people were just honest and called this what it is, which is a luxury good, then we wouldn't have a problem.
Except that butlers, and even Uber, are significantly more expensive than people expect AI driven cars to be, and as about a million people have pointed out above you, public transport is something entirely different.
Your whole line of argument is nonsensical. You're arguing there is no market for AI cars based on the fact that people currently drive their own car, therefore they must really like to drive. Otherwise they would use public transport today. And then people give you a whole list of reasons why people might want their own cars, and you just ignore them and reiterate your argument.
|
On October 17 2016 16:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 08:00 Simberto wrote:On October 17 2016 06:32 TMagpie wrote:On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand. If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology. Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings. Not really. Noone likes to be around people at all times. Sometimes, being alone is simply more relaxing. And from my experience, public transportation, even in the areas where it is quite good, is simply not as comfortable as private in a lot of situations. And that is coming from someone who uses basically only public transportation due to money issues. And i can very reasonably imagine time in a self-driving car being productive or relaxing time. Time in public transportation, at least unless you majorly overhaul the whole thing, is usually wasted at best. I assume we are not talking about some possible high-end public transportation, but roughly what is going on right now? And i am not certain why you are this angry at people not wishing to constantly be around people. I like people (Well, some of them), but i am still constantly slightly on edge when around people i don't know well enough to have a good read on the situation. And sometimes i just need some peace and quiet. Yet you state that whoever wishes to not interact with other people constantly is selfish. I do not agree with this assessment. Edit: For a purely public transportation system to be acceptable to a majority of people, it would need to be as good as current private transportation, which means taking you from your door to wherever you want to go, without a need to swap trains three times, or walk 1km to get there from the last station. It needs to take you there when you want to go, not every 15 minutes whenever it wants to drive. And it needs to allow you to transport whatever goods you want, up to small furniture. Currently, public transportation does neither, and i think that any public system that actually fulfills these criteria would require AI driven somethings, or be prohibitively expensive if it is basically just gigantic amount of taxi cabs. The issue is not with AI, it's with the dishonesty of the argument. Saving energy, saving the planet, saving lives--we already have that option through making public transportation better funded and the focus of city design. AI drivers is purely for luxury, not efficiency. It is dishonest otherwise. It's because people are imagining they can finally have their own chauffeurs like the rich and famous have to drive them around with the assumption that this luxury item will be prices for the general populace. I am saying the service of an automated vehicle is already present to people. Whether it's hiring a butler, using Uber, or taking the train. What is being asked for is not an automated system, what is being asked for is a dehumanized system under the guise of progress. If people were just honest and called this what it is, which is a luxury good, then we wouldn't have a problem. Except that butlers, and even Uber, are significantly more expensive than people expect AI driven cars to be, and as about a million people have pointed out above you, public transport is something entirely different. Your whole line of argument is nonsensical. You're arguing there is no market for AI cars based on the fact that people currently drive their own car, therefore they must really like to drive. Otherwise they would use public transport today. And then people give you a whole list of reasons why people might want their own cars, and you just ignore them and reiterate your argument.
I don't believe in pre-assuming the cost of the product before the product is even finished being researched. "It will be cheaper" when there is no product on the market now is a folly wholesale. As such, you don't know the price difference between current services and the what the AI will be priced on (especially since price points are based on demand, not cost to produce)
People already drive cars to circumvent the limits of already automated services. Just because people on a video game forum find it cool that the service will be a robot instead of a person does not change the nature of the service.
There's a lot of assumptions with the notion of AI cars. The first assumption is that it will be cheaper--but the healthcare and food industry already shows us that prices are not based on cost to make the good. The second assumption is efficiency, because they imagine coders will be able to pre-predict maximum efficiency in driving much better than people who see the variables as they happen. Third assumption is reaction time--because they assume that sensor technology moves at the same speed as AI technology, as manufacturing technology, as logistics practices, and economics practices.
So many assumptions of everything working out great and no assumptions of manufacturers cutting corners to maximize profit on vehicles who dont adapt unless it knows it made a mistake.
|
On October 17 2016 16:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 16:00 Acrofales wrote:On October 17 2016 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 08:00 Simberto wrote:On October 17 2016 06:32 TMagpie wrote:On October 17 2016 06:15 Yurie wrote:On October 17 2016 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2016 02:42 NewSunshine wrote: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. The point of self driving cars is so that the passenger doesn't have to drive. Taking a bus, uber, or taxi has already given us this service. Why hasn't that become the norm? Because people don't want to ride a car only going the speed limit, that doesn't cut corners to get to the new destination as fast as possible. Do you think AI will be built to go 10-15 miles over the speed limit like most drivers in highways? Do you think AI will be programmed to cut off other drivers when the person is running late for his important meeting? Do you think an AI will be programmed to drive dangerously to help give an edge to the rider? Do you believe riders will prefer riding in a vehicle that does not prioritize their immediate needs right that moment? The reason people like the idea of AI cars is because traffic commutes suck. You know what fixes that faster? More funding to public transportation. Better regulations to protect renters rights. Rent caps to prevent people from being priced out of a home. But sure, believe self driving cars is somehow socially game changing. The ways self driving is game changing is in reducing accidents (costs) and in allowing productive use of transport times without relying on another human to enable it (efficiency, cost savings). In talks about trucks becoming automatic there has been talk about the (forced) drivers doing documentation, office work, phone sales or whatever else the companies can find to double the use of the driver just sitting there. Most realistic is ensuring all the documentation and questions regarding the booked transport can be handled by the driver. Congestion is also improved by automatic cars since the minimum safe distance is closer than previously. What is dangerous distance for humans is safer with automatic cars due to faster reaction speeds and if implemented awareness of cars out of sight. Things like estimated break distance being shared would allow keeping the right distance judging on different stop distances. If in the long long run we hit major bottle necks in making vehicles better shared car pools of automatic cars would have no major argument against them since cars are more or less identical in functionalities. Allowing a decrease in amount of cars needed even if people still demand single person transports. edit As far as I know all major truck brands has research on automatic vehicles ongoing. They aren't doing that because they don't think there is demand. If you want safer roads you get rid of all individualized transport and only allow mass transport. Less drivers on road, easier to regulate speed and driving rules. Requires zero research since we already have the technology. Selfishness is the only reason people are against having to interact with other human beings. Not really. Noone likes to be around people at all times. Sometimes, being alone is simply more relaxing. And from my experience, public transportation, even in the areas where it is quite good, is simply not as comfortable as private in a lot of situations. And that is coming from someone who uses basically only public transportation due to money issues. And i can very reasonably imagine time in a self-driving car being productive or relaxing time. Time in public transportation, at least unless you majorly overhaul the whole thing, is usually wasted at best. I assume we are not talking about some possible high-end public transportation, but roughly what is going on right now? And i am not certain why you are this angry at people not wishing to constantly be around people. I like people (Well, some of them), but i am still constantly slightly on edge when around people i don't know well enough to have a good read on the situation. And sometimes i just need some peace and quiet. Yet you state that whoever wishes to not interact with other people constantly is selfish. I do not agree with this assessment. Edit: For a purely public transportation system to be acceptable to a majority of people, it would need to be as good as current private transportation, which means taking you from your door to wherever you want to go, without a need to swap trains three times, or walk 1km to get there from the last station. It needs to take you there when you want to go, not every 15 minutes whenever it wants to drive. And it needs to allow you to transport whatever goods you want, up to small furniture. Currently, public transportation does neither, and i think that any public system that actually fulfills these criteria would require AI driven somethings, or be prohibitively expensive if it is basically just gigantic amount of taxi cabs. The issue is not with AI, it's with the dishonesty of the argument. Saving energy, saving the planet, saving lives--we already have that option through making public transportation better funded and the focus of city design. AI drivers is purely for luxury, not efficiency. It is dishonest otherwise. It's because people are imagining they can finally have their own chauffeurs like the rich and famous have to drive them around with the assumption that this luxury item will be prices for the general populace. I am saying the service of an automated vehicle is already present to people. Whether it's hiring a butler, using Uber, or taking the train. What is being asked for is not an automated system, what is being asked for is a dehumanized system under the guise of progress. If people were just honest and called this what it is, which is a luxury good, then we wouldn't have a problem. Except that butlers, and even Uber, are significantly more expensive than people expect AI driven cars to be, and as about a million people have pointed out above you, public transport is something entirely different. Your whole line of argument is nonsensical. You're arguing there is no market for AI cars based on the fact that people currently drive their own car, therefore they must really like to drive. Otherwise they would use public transport today. And then people give you a whole list of reasons why people might want their own cars, and you just ignore them and reiterate your argument. I don't believe in pre-assuming the cost of the product before the product is even finished being researched. "It will be cheaper" when there is no product on the market now is a folly wholesale. As such, you don't know the price difference between current services and the what the AI will be priced on (especially since price points are based on demand, not cost to produce) People already drive cars to circumvent the limits of already automated services. Just because people on a video game forum find it cool that the service will be a robot instead of a person does not change the nature of the service. There's a lot of assumptions with the notion of AI cars. The first assumption is that it will be cheaper--but the healthcare and food industry already shows us that prices are not based on cost to make the good. The second assumption is efficiency, because they imagine coders will be able to pre-predict maximum efficiency in driving much better than people who see the variables as they happen. Third assumption is reaction time--because they assume that sensor technology moves at the same speed as AI technology, as manufacturing technology, as logistics practices, and economics practices. So many assumptions of everything working out great and no assumptions of manufacturers cutting corners to maximize profit on vehicles who dont adapt unless it knows it made a mistake.
You could just have said that the price of AI would be high, and thus closer to an Uber car than owning your own. Fairly certain that automation throughout history has proved you wrong. It starts off cheaper than paid labor for professional purposes (and thus replaces, for the most part, taxi drivers, truck drivers and other professional chauffeurs). And it becomes increasingly cheaper until it is widespread throughout society. We have seen this with so many examples of technology, it is safe to assume that self-driven cars will follow a similar path.
You could also have said that you didn't think it was technologically viable. In which case, as an expert on the technological side (not self-driving cars, but I do have a PhD in AI), I can tell you that the problem with sensors is definitely not their quality or their price. It is smart algorithms for making sense of the data. Turns out that deep learning algorithms are making huge strides in the image recognition area, which is already making vast differences in how accurate computer vision systems are. I agree that the most optimistic estimates that are being plastered in adverts and pop sci news pieces are not realistic, except for the most simple of situations (things like long-haul truckers who have to drive hundreds of kms along straight roads with minimal traffic). And the complexity of the task of actual city driving with unpredictable pedestrians/animals/bikes/mopeds is not to be underestimated, but so far there doesn't seem to be any fundamental barrier to slow (accelerating, actually) progress on the problem.
Some people will probably never want an AI car, because they enjoy driving. There is no doubt that there are extremely enjoyable roads to drive. But the daily commute to work is not one (and I am quite happy I now have a decent public transit option to get to work, which takes ~2x as long as driving, but is both cheaper, and far more enjoyable than driving in city traffic). Will I miss driving along twisty mountain roads in the bright sunshine? Yes, and I hope cars come with a "manual" option, which allow you to enjoy driving this type of road. But will I miss driving that same mountain road at 11pm with crazy traffic in order to get to the beach for the long weekend? No. Set it to auto and enjoy a beer in anticipation, with friends, and let the AI do the driving! Even my most car-crazy friends admit that it is sometimes a real drag (driving back home, when tired and with a hangover after that long weekend, for instance).
|
On October 17 2016 11:32 Cascade wrote:Ok, so as this discussion doesn't die out, let's at least get some new angles. As the automatic cars gradually take over the roads (let's assume they do), does that mean that the few human drivers still around can run red lights completely safely as the automated cars will reliably identify the risk? What if you hit the one other human driver doing the same thing? Will there still be traffic police when it's almost all automated cars? If there is a flaw in the AI algorithm that doesn't properly spot the human driver running the red light, and the human gets hit by the AI, will the AI get sued for killing the human, despite the human running the red light? Will there even be red lights when we only have automated cars? Will traffic actually slow down in practice as humans (pedestrians, bicycles, human drivers) feel safe being increasingly reckless and just crossing streets where they shouldn't? Will going in the automated cars actually be really uncomfortable as it regularly has to do sudden maneuvers to avoid the now-reckless humans?
All excellent points that need to be investigated in the scope of a new socio-technological system. Here is more food for thought on this type of problem: http://www.nature.com/news/there-is-a-blind-spot-in-ai-research-1.20805?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
These issues are underinvestigated even in current systems (I personally work on technology in education and see the problem there, the article points out hospitals, but also google adwords and legal support systems:
In a 2013 study, for example, Google searches of first names commonly used by black people were 25% more likely to flag up advertisements for a criminal-records search than those of ‘white-identifying’ names3. In another race-related finding, a ProPublica investigation in May 2016 found that the proprietary algorithms widely used by judges to help determine the risk of reoffending are almost twice as likely to mistakenly flag black defendants than white defendants (see go.nature.com/29aznyw).
Self-driven cars are not unique. Although they might be a big enough deal that this type of research will be done.
|
On October 17 2016 18:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:32 Cascade wrote:Ok, so as this discussion doesn't die out, let's at least get some new angles. As the automatic cars gradually take over the roads (let's assume they do), does that mean that the few human drivers still around can run red lights completely safely as the automated cars will reliably identify the risk? What if you hit the one other human driver doing the same thing? Will there still be traffic police when it's almost all automated cars? If there is a flaw in the AI algorithm that doesn't properly spot the human driver running the red light, and the human gets hit by the AI, will the AI get sued for killing the human, despite the human running the red light? Will there even be red lights when we only have automated cars? Will traffic actually slow down in practice as humans (pedestrians, bicycles, human drivers) feel safe being increasingly reckless and just crossing streets where they shouldn't? Will going in the automated cars actually be really uncomfortable as it regularly has to do sudden maneuvers to avoid the now-reckless humans? All excellent points that need to be investigated in the scope of a new socio-technological system. Here is more food for thought on this type of problem: http://www.nature.com/news/there-is-a-blind-spot-in-ai-research-1.20805?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNewsThese issues are underinvestigated even in current systems (I personally work on technology in education and see the problem there, the article points out hospitals, but also google adwords and legal support systems: Show nested quote +In a 2013 study, for example, Google searches of first names commonly used by black people were 25% more likely to flag up advertisements for a criminal-records search than those of ‘white-identifying’ names3. In another race-related finding, a ProPublica investigation in May 2016 found that the proprietary algorithms widely used by judges to help determine the risk of reoffending are almost twice as likely to mistakenly flag black defendants than white defendants (see go.nature.com/29aznyw). Self-driven cars are not unique. Although they might be a big enough deal that this type of research will be done.
Can make a living out of wearing clothes made on purpose to mess up the image recognition, get hit by an AI car (not too fast though!) and then sue whoever you sue for this kind of things?
Will there be competitions between different AIs from different brands to get to the target faster? Will the AI of one brand on purpose block cars from another brand to make their AI perform worse? Or maybe find tricks to trigger their panic-brake, making it uncomfortable to ride in cars of other makes?
Will automated cars suddenly make commuting over huge distance viable, as you can sleep in the car?
Can we have electric cars that can recharge themselves on the way, giving infinite range?
|
On October 17 2016 20:17 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 18:48 Acrofales wrote:On October 17 2016 11:32 Cascade wrote:Ok, so as this discussion doesn't die out, let's at least get some new angles. As the automatic cars gradually take over the roads (let's assume they do), does that mean that the few human drivers still around can run red lights completely safely as the automated cars will reliably identify the risk? What if you hit the one other human driver doing the same thing? Will there still be traffic police when it's almost all automated cars? If there is a flaw in the AI algorithm that doesn't properly spot the human driver running the red light, and the human gets hit by the AI, will the AI get sued for killing the human, despite the human running the red light? Will there even be red lights when we only have automated cars? Will traffic actually slow down in practice as humans (pedestrians, bicycles, human drivers) feel safe being increasingly reckless and just crossing streets where they shouldn't? Will going in the automated cars actually be really uncomfortable as it regularly has to do sudden maneuvers to avoid the now-reckless humans? All excellent points that need to be investigated in the scope of a new socio-technological system. Here is more food for thought on this type of problem: http://www.nature.com/news/there-is-a-blind-spot-in-ai-research-1.20805?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNewsThese issues are underinvestigated even in current systems (I personally work on technology in education and see the problem there, the article points out hospitals, but also google adwords and legal support systems: In a 2013 study, for example, Google searches of first names commonly used by black people were 25% more likely to flag up advertisements for a criminal-records search than those of ‘white-identifying’ names3. In another race-related finding, a ProPublica investigation in May 2016 found that the proprietary algorithms widely used by judges to help determine the risk of reoffending are almost twice as likely to mistakenly flag black defendants than white defendants (see go.nature.com/29aznyw). Self-driven cars are not unique. Although they might be a big enough deal that this type of research will be done. Can make a living out of wearing clothes made on purpose to mess up the image recognition, get hit by an AI car (not too fast though!) and then sue whoever you sue for this kind of things? Will there be competitions between different AIs from different brands to get to the target faster? Will the AI of one brand on purpose block cars from another brand to make their AI perform worse? Or maybe find tricks to trigger their panic-brake, making it uncomfortable to ride in cars of other makes? Will automated cars suddenly make commuting over huge distance viable, as you can sleep in the car? Can we have electric cars that can recharge themselves on the way, giving infinite range?
At least you're posting in the spirit of the thread 
|
I think people often underestimate how awesome full VI cars will be...
Suddenly, the following happen:
-Never look for a parking spot again: car drops you off and parks itself; comes when called.
-Out of sight, the actual parking process way more efficient; every car is valet parked and they can communicate about which spots are available.
-Traffic engineers and car companies will have *massive* amounts of data on all kinds of risk factors. Even human-driven cars will hugely increase in safety.
-Being in a car is like being in a train: you can read a book, play chess, sleep, even fuck. Longer trips become fun.
-Car ownership will gradually become obsolete. The Zipcar model will gradually apply to much auto transit. Even for rural areas, people may move to collectively owning cars; most cars spend most time sitting idle. This will no longer be an issue.
-Everyone has a DD all the time.
-Incidental benefits to increased safety for cyclists, pedestrians, etc.
|
On October 18 2016 01:57 Yoav wrote:
I think people often underestimate how awesome full VI cars will be...
Suddenly, the following happen:
-Never look for a parking spot again: car drops you off and parks itself; comes when called.
-Out of sight, the actual parking process way more efficient; every car is valet parked and they can communicate about which spots are available.
-Traffic engineers and car companies will have *massive* amounts of data on all kinds of risk factors. Even human-driven cars will hugely increase in safety.
-Being in a car is like being in a train: you can read a book, play chess, sleep, even fuck. Longer trips become fun.
-Car ownership will gradually become obsolete. The Zipcar model will gradually apply to much auto transit. Even for rural areas, people may move to collectively owning cars; most cars spend most time sitting idle. This will no longer be an issue.
-Everyone has a DD all the time.
-Incidental benefits to increased safety for cyclists, pedestrians, etc.
What's magical is that all these things can easily come true even without AI by simply increasing funding to public transit. But you hit the nail in the head--the world will not become better until people stop having their own cars and people stop seeing vehicles as property for them to own.
Although I would an increase in ZipCar use over car ownership--and I would love even more to have a zero car ownership rule where people just hop in and out of public transport systems. For the most part, car ownership is one of the worse things we have done to the environment in ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
