User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:26:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell the car where the road is in the middle of a sudden blizzard? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only way this driverless car shit is going to happen is if the .gov imbeds sensors in the road and the DOT can send messages to the car... "left lane is closed for work", "accident ahead", etc. There is going to have to be some sort of network where everything communicates. No way an autonomous vehicle is going to work on the streets... First few incidents and the maker is going to go out of business from lawsuits. This. Every fender bender, struck animal, slide off from black ice, spilled oil, etc. is going to invite a law suit. What exactly are those embedded road sensors going to do that the sensors on the car can't? Other than waste a bunch of taxpayer dollars?  Tell the car where the road is in the middle of a sudden blizzard? I guess we'll have to resort to manual mode if the GPS can't handle it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:27:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, how many of you would purchase a car that is programmed to kill you instead of a pedestrian or two? Depends. Is the pedestrian walking his dog and jumping in front of my car while filming me? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:30:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Autonomous cars are gonna take over the streets sometime after electric cars do.
Hint: the first electric car is over a hundred years old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:31:01 PM EDT
[#4]
I hope self-driving cars are wildly successful.
I hope that every soccer mom, elderly person and Asian lady buy one, and that they are programmed to follow the speed limit to letter, and I hope dear God, above all else, that they are programmed to stay right except to pass! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:38:35 PM EDT
[#5]
if someone is teaching driverless cars to break the law, could they please make mine travel 15mph over the speed limit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:38:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope self-driving cars are wildly successful. I hope that every soccer mom, elderly person and Asian lady buy one, and that they are programmed to follow the speed limit to letter, and I hope dear God, above all else, that they are programmed to stay right except to pass!
I bet you a dollar the first intro of the tech will be in the fast lane on the interstate. Want the hammer lane? KITT cars only. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:47:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet you a dollar the first intro of the tech will be in the fast lane on the interstate. Want the hammer lane? KITT cars only. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope self-driving cars are wildly successful. I hope that every soccer mom, elderly person and Asian lady buy one, and that they are programmed to follow the speed limit to letter, and I hope dear God, above all else, that they are programmed to stay right except to pass!
I bet you a dollar the first intro of the tech will be in the fast lane on the interstate. Want the hammer lane? KITT cars only. The future is nowtwo years ago. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:15:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I pay more attention to stuff that actually has a chance of being a commercial success in the next few years, like that Freightliner. Google is a long way from having a product on the market, and even still, it's just a level 3. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are so clueless it's painful. The basis of machine vision and machine learning is such that through either supervised or unsupervised learning algorithms continually evaluate and reevaluate decisions. It's not static shit from 1980 that lays out a billion conditions. The most frustrating parts of these threads is reading responses from people who know next to nothing about advanced algorithms. The premise that we won't have cars because of liability is also foolish. Tons of decisions are made these days by computers that we rely on. Lastly there's already been a self driving 18 wheeler for MONTHS on the road from Daimler with only the driver to act as act manual backup. Nevada DMV issued the vehicle, not a driver, to operate within the state. LOL "manual backup" that is responsible for getting on the highway, changing lanes, passing slower cars, drive through construction zones, drive during bad weather, get off the highway, etc. That truck is a perfect example of what most of the "autonomous" cars in the near future will be like, a fancy next gen cruise control that will have a person behind the wheel to make the big decisions. So you haven't been following the Google car project? I pay more attention to stuff that actually has a chance of being a commercial success in the next few years, like that Freightliner. Google is a long way from having a product on the market, and even still, it's just a level 3. So no, you haven't. Because it's really not a long way away. They've put millions of miles on cars without driver input and haven't run into anything. So far the project is fantastically successful, and legislation in both CA and NV have been introduced to pave the way for the introduction of autonomous cars. Why would you openly admit that you aren't paying attention to that and then criticize it in the same line based on your lack of knowledge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:28:35 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So no, you haven't. Because it's really not a long way away. They've put millions of miles on cars without driver input and haven't run into anything. So far the project is fantastically successful, and legislation in both CA and NV have been introduced to pave the way for the introduction of autonomous cars. Why would you openly admit that you aren't paying attention to that and then criticize it in the same line based on your lack of knowledge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are so clueless it's painful. The basis of machine vision and machine learning is such that through either supervised or unsupervised learning algorithms continually evaluate and reevaluate decisions. It's not static shit from 1980 that lays out a billion conditions. The most frustrating parts of these threads is reading responses from people who know next to nothing about advanced algorithms. The premise that we won't have cars because of liability is also foolish. Tons of decisions are made these days by computers that we rely on. Lastly there's already been a self driving 18 wheeler for MONTHS on the road from Daimler with only the driver to act as act manual backup. Nevada DMV issued the vehicle, not a driver, to operate within the state. LOL "manual backup" that is responsible for getting on the highway, changing lanes, passing slower cars, drive through construction zones, drive during bad weather, get off the highway, etc. That truck is a perfect example of what most of the "autonomous" cars in the near future will be like, a fancy next gen cruise control that will have a person behind the wheel to make the big decisions. So you haven't been following the Google car project? I pay more attention to stuff that actually has a chance of being a commercial success in the next few years, like that Freightliner. Google is a long way from having a product on the market, and even still, it's just a level 3. So no, you haven't. Because it's really not a long way away. They've put millions of miles on cars without driver input and haven't run into anything. So far the project is fantastically successful, and legislation in both CA and NV have been introduced to pave the way for the introduction of autonomous cars. Why would you openly admit that you aren't paying attention to that and then criticize it in the same line based on your lack of knowledge? I would think we're within two years of fully automated cars being legal and available for sale to the general public. Maybe less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:31:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it truly follows those rules (in general terms), then a ticket should probably never happen, as it was just trying to protect someone or something else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects If it truly follows those rules (in general terms), then a ticket should probably never happen, as it was just trying to protect someone or something else. That's not how this works. They gotta ticket SOMEBODY. 'Murica. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:42:45 AM EDT
[#11]
What happens if some gang bangers step in front of your autonomous car to make it stop so they can rob you? Or there is some kind of other impending danger that you need to get away from that requires driving in a non standard manner?
And I don't see how an AI car could ever hope to handle driving on icy roads at anything other than a crawl, which would just as likely lead you to being stuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:45:03 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happens if some gang bangers step in front of your autonomous car to make it stop so they can rob you? Or there is some kind of other impending danger that you need to get away from that requires driving in a non standard manner? Turn the system off and do what you have to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:53:55 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What they failed to mention in the article was that after the computer avoided hitting any cones, Tammy plowed right through them while fighting with autocorrect over the correct spelling for 'totes'". During questioning, she insisted that it wasn't her fault that they put a manhole there and that they shouldn't put them in the middle of the road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:58:34 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like one of those philosophical dilemmas they give you in school. "A runaway train is about to kill a five person work crew on its current course; do you throw a switch so that it kills the one person crossing on the other track or let it continue?" Do any of them owe you money? Any Hillary 2016 stickers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 12:16:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Am I the only person who has had a computer, cell phone or other electronic device fail?
Or been the only person whose phone lost service? Do you know how buggy systems' software get when voltage levels drop just enough so the hardware barely runs? Course no one had any sensors of any kind fail in their car... Of course the shit works great when its brand new and not been used in ant real sense. Yeah...you trust it. Of course ARFcom is quick and smart and will take over at the first hint of any possible issue... But will the drunk texting blind guy whose sole faith is in auto pilot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 12:20:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects I believe this question has some case law support for charging the vehicle. Money is charged and confiscated. They will treat the vehicle like a person and impound it, make the vehicle's insurance pay for a lawyer, and punish the vehicle by taking it and selling it at auction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 12:24:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Liability concerns will kill completely self-driving cars in our lifetimes. Technology is not there yet to replace a driver in all conditions and circumstances. Not to mention the law. (Officer, it was Twiki here who blew the red light!) That said, I'll be happy when I can get a good highway-only autopilot. Much easier to code for, too. Bullshit. Here is how it will really go down. The "self-driving" cars will still have all the controls you would normally have on a car. The car will also be able to do 100% of driving. Liability? The owner of the machine, with full input, allowed it to do ________________ that would cause harm. The down side to this that you could also be ticketed for the same shit you do now as a driver. Drunk, sleeping, road head, etc. The onus will be on the driver to ensure his machine acts in accordance with all laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 1:49:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would think we're within two years of fully automated cars being legal and available for sale to the general public. Maybe less. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you haven't been following the Google car project? I pay more attention to stuff that actually has a chance of being a commercial success in the next few years, like that Freightliner. Google is a long way from having a product on the market, and even still, it's just a level 3. So no, you haven't. Because it's really not a long way away. They've put millions of miles on cars without driver input and haven't run into anything. So far the project is fantastically successful, and legislation in both CA and NV have been introduced to pave the way for the introduction of autonomous cars. Why would you openly admit that you aren't paying attention to that and then criticize it in the same line based on your lack of knowledge? I would think we're within two years of fully automated cars being legal and available for sale to the general public. Maybe less. That's probably fairly reasonable, but it's going to be a $200,000 car in the early days. All the sensors, lasers, radar, photo processing equipment, etc... shit's expensive. They say there's $150,000 worth of electronics on the Google car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 2:12:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's probably fairly reasonable, but it's going to be a $200,000 car in the early days. All the sensors, lasers, radar, photo processing equipment, etc... shit's expensive. They say there's $150,000 worth of electronics on the Google car. The 7 series that just debuted has the equipment to self drive(but forces the driver to be touching the wheel). It's fortunately much cheaper than 200k.
Edit: Tesla also has their auto pilot which I believe is a 3k option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 2:25:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like one of those philosophical dilemmas they give you in school. "A runaway train is about to kill a five person work crew on its current course; do you throw a switch so that it kills the one person crossing on the other track or let it continue?" Put the switch halfway between positions and derail the train. You'll either save them all or get to watch the world burn. Plus you can wipe your fingerprints off and say you never touched it if it goes wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 2:41:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And what about when the choice is between killing two people. The "Trolley" problem is an interesting example, but if the choice is between; 1. A 70 year old man in a wheel 2. A 7 year old child 3. A 25 year old woman. Who do you kill, and how do you tell a car to make that choice. A semi autonomous car has the benefit of reverting to the driver who is supposed to be paying attention and able to over ride during an emergency, but a driverless car needs to make that choice on its own, while its passenger sleeps. Further, who pays the wrongful death claim In the real world 99.99% of the people will lock up and continue on the path they were on and whoever was in their way. Who pays? The owner of the car, the manufacturer of the car and anyone else who touched or looked at the car. These cars will be legislated out of existence before they even have a chance to gain a foothold in the USA. UNLESS someone passes a law that does not hold owners and manufacturers responsible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 2:53:28 PM EDT
[#22]
I have yet to read or hear of a study done with these cars that involves a motorcycle.
I am guessing that you could really fuck with one of these cars if you wanted to, you would probably never have to worry about getting rear-ended if you did a "brake check". They would never contest you if you are a gore point runner (wait till the last minute to merge into traffic). You could probably squeeze them off the road just by encroaching on their space in the road (like drifting into their lane). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 3:29:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I the only person who has had a computer, cell phone or other electronic device fail? Or been the only person whose phone lost service? Do you know how buggy systems' software get when voltage levels drop just enough so the hardware barely runs? Course no one had any sensors of any kind fail in their car... Of course the shit works great when its brand new and not been used in ant real sense. Yeah...you trust it. Of course ARFcom is quick and smart and will take over at the first hint of any possible issue... But will the drunk texting blind guy whose sole faith is in auto pilot? Good point. My truck frequently has a mind of it's own, and it doesn't even have artificial intelligence. Just this week I hopped in to go to work, turned the key to start and all the power went out. Tried the ignition a few more times, gave up and got out in the dark. As soon as I shut the door the power came back on and I was able to get in, start it up and drive away like nothing happened, except the stereo had to be reset from completely losing power. The gauges are constantly giving goofy readings although not always the same gauge and not always off the same amount or direction. I've had the speedo tell me I'm doing 50mph when I'm stopped at an intersection. I have a deep mistrust of electronics, and a good reason for it. I have sense enough to know that I'm actually doing about 70mph when my electronic speedo thinks we're doing 30mph. What happens when I'm not in the loop and the car thinks it's doing 70 mph and it's actually doing 120? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 3:44:07 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have yet to read or hear of a study done with these cars that involves a motorcycle. I am guessing that you could really fuck with one of these cars if you wanted to, you would probably never have to worry about getting rear-ended if you did a "brake check". They would never contest you if you are a gore point runner (wait till the last minute to merge into traffic). You could probably squeeze them off the road just by encroaching on their space in the road (like drifting into their lane). That's pretty much why I hate my adaptive cruise control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 3:45:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point. My truck frequently has a mind of it's own, and it doesn't even have artificial intelligence. Just this week I hopped in to go to work, turned the key to start and all the power went out. Tried the ignition a few more times, gave up and got out in the dark. As soon as I shut the door the power came back on and I was able to get in, start it up and drive away like nothing happened, except the stereo had to be reset from completely losing power. The gauges are constantly giving goofy readings although not always the same gauge and not always off the same amount or direction. I've had the speedo tell me I'm doing 50mph when I'm stopped at an intersection. I have a deep mistrust of electronics, and a good reason for it. I have sense enough to know that I'm actually doing about 70mph when my electronic speedo thinks we're doing 30mph. What happens when I'm not in the loop and the car thinks it's doing 70 mph and it's actually doing 120? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Am I the only person who has had a computer, cell phone or other electronic device fail? Or been the only person whose phone lost service? Do you know how buggy systems' software get when voltage levels drop just enough so the hardware barely runs? Course no one had any sensors of any kind fail in their car... Of course the shit works great when its brand new and not been used in ant real sense. Yeah...you trust it. Of course ARFcom is quick and smart and will take over at the first hint of any possible issue... But will the drunk texting blind guy whose sole faith is in auto pilot? Good point. My truck frequently has a mind of it's own, and it doesn't even have artificial intelligence. Just this week I hopped in to go to work, turned the key to start and all the power went out. Tried the ignition a few more times, gave up and got out in the dark. As soon as I shut the door the power came back on and I was able to get in, start it up and drive away like nothing happened, except the stereo had to be reset from completely losing power. The gauges are constantly giving goofy readings although not always the same gauge and not always off the same amount or direction. I've had the speedo tell me I'm doing 50mph when I'm stopped at an intersection. I have a deep mistrust of electronics, and a good reason for it. I have sense enough to know that I'm actually doing about 70mph when my electronic speedo thinks we're doing 30mph. What happens when I'm not in the loop and the car thinks it's doing 70 mph and it's actually doing 120? You need a new battery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 4:03:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point. My truck frequently has a mind of it's own, and it doesn't even have artificial intelligence. Just this week I hopped in to go to work, turned the key to start and all the power went out. Tried the ignition a few more times, gave up and got out in the dark. As soon as I shut the door the power came back on and I was able to get in, start it up and drive away like nothing happened, except the stereo had to be reset from completely losing power. The gauges are constantly giving goofy readings although not always the same gauge and not always off the same amount or direction. I've had the speedo tell me I'm doing 50mph when I'm stopped at an intersection. I have a deep mistrust of electronics, and a good reason for it. I have sense enough to know that I'm actually doing about 70mph when my electronic speedo thinks we're doing 30mph. What happens when I'm not in the loop and the car thinks it's doing 70 mph and it's actually doing 120? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Am I the only person who has had a computer, cell phone or other electronic device fail? Or been the only person whose phone lost service? Do you know how buggy systems' software get when voltage levels drop just enough so the hardware barely runs? Course no one had any sensors of any kind fail in their car... Of course the shit works great when its brand new and not been used in ant real sense. Yeah...you trust it. Of course ARFcom is quick and smart and will take over at the first hint of any possible issue... But will the drunk texting blind guy whose sole faith is in auto pilot? Good point. My truck frequently has a mind of it's own, and it doesn't even have artificial intelligence. Just this week I hopped in to go to work, turned the key to start and all the power went out. Tried the ignition a few more times, gave up and got out in the dark. As soon as I shut the door the power came back on and I was able to get in, start it up and drive away like nothing happened, except the stereo had to be reset from completely losing power. The gauges are constantly giving goofy readings although not always the same gauge and not always off the same amount or direction. I've had the speedo tell me I'm doing 50mph when I'm stopped at an intersection. I have a deep mistrust of electronics, and a good reason for it. I have sense enough to know that I'm actually doing about 70mph when my electronic speedo thinks we're doing 30mph. What happens when I'm not in the loop and the car thinks it's doing 70 mph and it's actually doing 120? Since the car will have multiple ways of determining speed, it would likely not take control of the car if it didn't have a functioning system with consistent readings. Saying your 1976 truck has problems, therefore a 2021 truck wouldn't work right is a little... irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 4:42:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I the only person who has had a computer, cell phone or other electronic device fail? Or been the only person whose phone lost service? Do you know how buggy systems' software get when voltage levels drop just enough so the hardware barely runs? Course no one had any sensors of any kind fail in their car... Of course the shit works great when its brand new and not been used in ant real sense. Yeah...you trust it. Of course ARFcom is quick and smart and will take over at the first hint of any possible issue... But will the drunk texting blind guy whose sole faith is in auto pilot? There's a wide gap between computers and cell phones and how software is developed for them, and how software is developed for applications like missiles, aircraft, self-driving cars, etc. It doesn't matter if your cell phone GPS position is off a few yards. It doesn't matter if your cell phone "loses service". The software in them is developed with a much greater tolerance for that kind of error. Sensors can be monitored. If they fail, the software will normally know that they failed and can either alarm to alert the driver and come out of automatic mode if the sensor is critical or take any number of other approaches to dealing with the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 4:43:00 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's probably fairly reasonable, but it's going to be a $200,000 car in the early days. All the sensors, lasers, radar, photo processing equipment, etc... shit's expensive. They say there's $150,000 worth of electronics on the Google car. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you haven't been following the Google car project? I pay more attention to stuff that actually has a chance of being a commercial success in the next few years, like that Freightliner. Google is a long way from having a product on the market, and even still, it's just a level 3. So no, you haven't. Because it's really not a long way away. They've put millions of miles on cars without driver input and haven't run into anything. So far the project is fantastically successful, and legislation in both CA and NV have been introduced to pave the way for the introduction of autonomous cars. Why would you openly admit that you aren't paying attention to that and then criticize it in the same line based on your lack of knowledge? I would think we're within two years of fully automated cars being legal and available for sale to the general public. Maybe less. That's probably fairly reasonable, but it's going to be a $200,000 car in the early days. All the sensors, lasers, radar, photo processing equipment, etc... shit's expensive. They say there's $150,000 worth of electronics on the Google car. Maybe -- but prices on this stuff are coming down fast. I suspect a lot of the cost of the google car is actually software development that's already been mostly done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 5:15:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Bots don't have to be perfect, just better than people, which they are. That's been demonstrated. There's nothing left to invent, the technology is here and it is good. With that said, it's going to be years before it becomes commonplace. We always seem to overestimate how fast revolutionary technology will be widely adopted.
I imagine more and more "driver assist" features will be built into cars and in 10-20 years, completely automated vehicles will be the norm. There'll be lanes and roadways which allow faster traffic, but it'll be illegal for "humans" to drive the cars, they'll allow auton's only. Accident rates will decline, and lots of jobs will be affected. Fewer traffic accidents, injuries, and death, fewer violations, fewer DUI's. Think about how much money we can save on traffic enforcement, and court. ...of course we won't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 11:47:40 AM EDT
[#30]
At a press event today, Tesla announced the release tomorrow of version 7.0 of the Model S software, a big, widely anticipated new build that finally enables the car's self-driving features.
......... This isn't a fully autonomous vehicle in the vein of a Google car, though — the primary feature is what Tesla calls Autosteer, which keeps the car in its current lane once you're already on the road and manages speed and distance from the car ahead. On the call, Elon Musk was careful to call out Autosteer as a "beta" feature — drivers are told to keep their hands on the wheel, even when the function is engaged. ......... There will be a time when truly fully autonomous cars come, though, Tesla included. Musk said on the call that he thinks his company can have a car ready within three years that lets you sleep all the way from point A to point B — the commuter's dream — but it'll take anywhere from another year to several years to work through the regulatory issues. (That aligns with the predictions of many in the auto industry that regulatory catch-up will be the bottleneck, not the underlying technology.) http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/14/9533539/teslas-cars-can-drive-themselves-starting-tomorrow |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 12:01:12 PM EDT
[#31]
The robot computed a 45% chance of my survival and only an 11% survival of the girl.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 2:25:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: At a press event today, Tesla announced the release tomorrow of version 7.0 of the Model S software, a big, widely anticipated new build that finally enables the car's self-driving features. ......... This isn't a fully autonomous vehicle in the vein of a Google car, though — the primary feature is what Tesla calls Autosteer, which keeps the car in its current lane once you're already on the road and manages speed and distance from the car ahead. On the call, Elon Musk was careful to call out Autosteer as a "beta" feature — drivers are told to keep their hands on the wheel, even when the function is engaged. ......... There will be a time when truly fully autonomous cars come, though, Tesla included. Musk said on the call that he thinks his company can have a car ready within three years that lets you sleep all the way from point A to point B — the commuter's dream — but it'll take anywhere from another year to several years to work through the regulatory issues. (That aligns with the predictions of many in the auto industry that regulatory catch-up will be the bottleneck, not the underlying technology.) http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/14/9533539/teslas-cars-can-drive-themselves-starting-tomorrow A software upgrade that enables "autosteer". Think about that for a minute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 3:30:40 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A software upgrade that enables "autosteer". Think about that for a minute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At a press event today, Tesla announced the release tomorrow of version 7.0 of the Model S software, a big, widely anticipated new build that finally enables the car's self-driving features.
......... This isn't a fully autonomous vehicle in the vein of a Google car, though — the primary feature is what Tesla calls Autosteer, which keeps the car in its current lane once you're already on the road and manages speed and distance from the car ahead. On the call, Elon Musk was careful to call out Autosteer as a "beta" feature — drivers are told to keep their hands on the wheel, even when the function is engaged. ......... There will be a time when truly fully autonomous cars come, though, Tesla included. Musk said on the call that he thinks his company can have a car ready within three years that lets you sleep all the way from point A to point B — the commuter's dream — but it'll take anywhere from another year to several years to work through the regulatory issues. (That aligns with the predictions of many in the auto industry that regulatory catch-up will be the bottleneck, not the underlying technology.) http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/14/9533539/teslas-cars-can-drive-themselves-starting-tomorrow A software upgrade that enables "autosteer". Think about that for a minute. What are we thinking about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 4:17:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Madness. And when the cars become self-aware?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 6:55:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are we thinking about? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At a press event today, Tesla announced the release tomorrow of version 7.0 of the Model S software, a big, widely anticipated new build that finally enables the car's self-driving features.
......... This isn't a fully autonomous vehicle in the vein of a Google car, though — the primary feature is what Tesla calls Autosteer, which keeps the car in its current lane once you're already on the road and manages speed and distance from the car ahead. On the call, Elon Musk was careful to call out Autosteer as a "beta" feature — drivers are told to keep their hands on the wheel, even when the function is engaged. ......... There will be a time when truly fully autonomous cars come, though, Tesla included. Musk said on the call that he thinks his company can have a car ready within three years that lets you sleep all the way from point A to point B — the commuter's dream — but it'll take anywhere from another year to several years to work through the regulatory issues. (That aligns with the predictions of many in the auto industry that regulatory catch-up will be the bottleneck, not the underlying technology.) http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/14/9533539/teslas-cars-can-drive-themselves-starting-tomorrow A software upgrade that enables "autosteer". Think about that for a minute. What are we thinking about? Remote hacking by a rogue group to assassinate conservatives. Completely deniable and easily covered up by way of, "It's a new feature" or "Vehicles are never 100% safe". At least that is the conspiracy that I think he is hinting at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 12:36:16 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Remote hacking by a rogue group to assassinate conservatives. Completely deniable and easily covered up by way of, "It's a new feature" or "Vehicles are never 100% safe". At least that is the conspiracy that I think he is hinting at. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: At a press event today, Tesla announced the release tomorrow of version 7.0 of the Model S software, a big, widely anticipated new build that finally enables the car's self-driving features. ......... This isn't a fully autonomous vehicle in the vein of a Google car, though — the primary feature is what Tesla calls Autosteer, which keeps the car in its current lane once you're already on the road and manages speed and distance from the car ahead. On the call, Elon Musk was careful to call out Autosteer as a "beta" feature — drivers are told to keep their hands on the wheel, even when the function is engaged. ......... There will be a time when truly fully autonomous cars come, though, Tesla included. Musk said on the call that he thinks his company can have a car ready within three years that lets you sleep all the way from point A to point B — the commuter's dream — but it'll take anywhere from another year to several years to work through the regulatory issues. (That aligns with the predictions of many in the auto industry that regulatory catch-up will be the bottleneck, not the underlying technology.) http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/14/9533539/teslas-cars-can-drive-themselves-starting-tomorrow A software upgrade that enables "autosteer". Think about that for a minute. What are we thinking about? Remote hacking by a rogue group to assassinate conservatives. Completely deniable and easily covered up by way of, "It's a new feature" or "Vehicles are never 100% safe". At least that is the conspiracy that I think he is hinting at. Not at all (though it does present security risks). More along the lines you get new functionality in your automobile in the same manner as you do on your computer. Its not like it required a trip to the shop and specialized equipment. Along similar lines, a while back Telsa was able to shave a few fractions of a second off their cars 0-60 times with a similar update. The geek in me simply  thinking about the line between computer and car becoming blurry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 12:56:41 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not at all (though it does present security risks). More along the lines you get new functionality in your automobile in the same manner as you do on your computer. Its not like it required a trip to the shop and specialized equipment. Along similar lines, a while back Telsa was able to shave a few fractions of a second off their cars 0-60 times with a similar update. The geek in me simply thinking about the line between computer and car becoming blurry.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Remote hacking by a rogue group to assassinate conservatives. Completely deniable and easily covered up by way of, "It's a new feature" or "Vehicles are never 100% safe". At least that is the conspiracy that I think he is hinting at. Not at all (though it does present security risks). More along the lines you get new functionality in your automobile in the same manner as you do on your computer. Its not like it required a trip to the shop and specialized equipment. Along similar lines, a while back Telsa was able to shave a few fractions of a second off their cars 0-60 times with a similar update. The geek in me simply thinking about the line between computer and car becoming blurry.
Ahh...that makes sense, though what is defined as a computer is very loose. The '90 300zx's I used to own were very advanced for an 8-bit ECU that used vacuum inputs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 1:05:44 AM EDT
[#38]
I came across this video of some guy riding in a Tesla driving in autonomous mode, and thought about this thread. His uneasiness is obvious. I think this kind of technology is going to take some getting use to, especially for those of us not "growing up" with it. But eventually, it'll be as normal as smartphones are to us today.
In any case, it's a short video.... https://youtu.be/3yCAZWdqX_Y
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 2:44:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I came across this video of some guy riding in a Tesla driving in autonomous mode, and thought about this thread. His uneasiness is obvious. I think this kind of technology is going to take some getting use to, especially for those of us not "growing up" with it. But eventually, it'll be as normal as smartphones are us today. In any case, it's a short video.... https://youtu.be/3yCAZWdqX_Y  https://youtu.be/3yCAZWdqX_YYeah its going to take some time for people to trust a computer to make the right decisions. Which is why I suspect it will be a long time, if ever, before manual controls fade away. In a couple decades there will be kids coming to age where they have never, and will never, really drive. They will be a passenger to an automated vehicle. More interesting than the social impact is how our government is going to react to this technology. It is going to bring serious question to large swaths of traffic law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 3:21:12 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah its going to take some time for people to trust a computer to make the right decisions. Which is why I suspect it will be a long time, if ever, before manual controls fade away. In a couple decades there will be kids coming to age where they have never, and will never, really drive. They will be a passenger to an automated vehicle. More interesting than the social impact is how our government is going to react to this technology. It is going to bring serious question to large swaths of traffic law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I came across this video of some guy riding in a Tesla driving in autonomous mode, and thought about this thread. His uneasiness is obvious. I think this kind of technology is going to take some getting use to, especially for those of us not "growing up" with it. But eventually, it'll be as normal as smartphones are us today. In any case, it's a short video.... https://youtu.be/3yCAZWdqX_Y https://youtu.be/3yCAZWdqX_YYeah its going to take some time for people to trust a computer to make the right decisions. Which is why I suspect it will be a long time, if ever, before manual controls fade away. In a couple decades there will be kids coming to age where they have never, and will never, really drive. They will be a passenger to an automated vehicle. More interesting than the social impact is how our government is going to react to this technology. It is going to bring serious question to large swaths of traffic law. These cars are going to be able to travel safely at faster rates. they're also going to be able to travel in closer proximity to other vehicles since their reaction times will be far superior to humans. I think it will effect road design, and can honestly see a day were some municipalities ban human driving. There will be much fewer accidents, and traffic violations will be all but gone. So eventually there will be substantially less need for traffic enforcement, and emergency response units. "Traffic court" will probably become a thing of the past, as will DUI's. I imagine calling for a car will be a different experience. I imagine people might even "subscribe" to car services, instead of owning a car. A lot of jobs will be effected, no more cab drivers, bus drivers, or truck drivers, less need for traffic patrol officers, EMT units, court overhead and legal cases, fewer opportunities for "ambulance chasers"  . I'm sure the first generation of autons will look a lot like today's cars, but as time goes on they'll probably be reconfigured for travel comfort and entertainment, and passenger interaction. I'm sure the first generation or two will have manual controls, but in time those will probably become significantly downplayed in autons.
The anton of the 2040's-50's will be as different in from and funtion from today's cars, as our phones are from the old rotary phones of the 70's and 80's. It's going to be an interesting transition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 3:28:20 AM EDT
[#41]
A real interesting thought is the concept of a driver's license. Would a child need a license to be put into your self driving car to be hauled off to school? It could get them there safely, and return to your garage all on its own. Would the regulations favor automated buses, but not allow to do the same with your own automated vehicle? A fully automated and networked taxi type company will be a thing to behold. Like Uber without the driver. I could see something like that putting a even bigger dent on car ownership. Costs would be so low, it could be cheaper than owning without much loss in convenience.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 3:39:53 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A real interesting thought is the concept of a driver's license. Would a child need a license to be put into your self driving car to be hauled off to school? It could get them there safely, and return to your garage all on its own. Would the regulations favor automated buses, but not allow to do the same with your own automated vehicle? A fully automated and networked taxi type company will be a thing to behold. Like Uber without the driver. I could see something like that putting a even bigger dent on car ownership. Costs would be so low, it could be cheaper than owning without much loss in convenience. I think like all technological revolutions of this magnitude, it'll take some time for government to "catch up". If for no other reason then government people like their jobs and benefits. So, you'll still be required to have a "driver's" licence to operate an auton. You'll still probably get a DUI for "riding" in an auton. But in time, those will fade away. We'll adjust. I do think it could have significant impact on personal car ownership. I think "not owning" a car will be an option that more people might take. I think "networking" will be secondary. These will be fully independent autons, I think networking or expanding wireless networks will be more important for onboard entertainment, then it will for the bot to travel through traffic. In other words the bot won't need a network to operate, anymore then a human driver needs to be "online" to drive. But obviously connectivity isn't a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 3:45:12 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like one of those philosophical dilemmas they give you in school. "A runaway train is about to kill a five person work crew on its current course; do you throw a switch so that it kills the one person crossing on the other track or let it continue?" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 3:54:11 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think like all technological revolutions of this magnitude, it'll take some time for government to "catch up". If for no other reason then government people like their jobs and benefits. So, you'll still be required to have a "driver's" licence to operate an auton. You'll still probably get a DUI for "riding" in an auton. But in time, those will fade away. We'll adjust. I do think it could have significant impact on personal car ownership. I think "not owning" a car will be an option that more people might take. I think "networking" will be secondary. These will be fully independent autons, I think networking or expanding wireless networks will be more important for onboard entertainment, then it will for the bot to travel through traffic. In other words the bot won't need a network to operate, anymore then a human driver needs to be "online" to drive. But obviously connectivity isn't a bad thing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A real interesting thought is the concept of a driver's license. Would a child need a license to be put into your self driving car to be hauled off to school? It could get them there safely, and return to your garage all on its own. Would the regulations favor automated buses, but not allow to do the same with your own automated vehicle? A fully automated and networked taxi type company will be a thing to behold. Like Uber without the driver. I could see something like that putting a even bigger dent on car ownership. Costs would be so low, it could be cheaper than owning without much loss in convenience. I think like all technological revolutions of this magnitude, it'll take some time for government to "catch up". If for no other reason then government people like their jobs and benefits. So, you'll still be required to have a "driver's" licence to operate an auton. You'll still probably get a DUI for "riding" in an auton. But in time, those will fade away. We'll adjust. I do think it could have significant impact on personal car ownership. I think "not owning" a car will be an option that more people might take. I think "networking" will be secondary. These will be fully independent autons, I think networking or expanding wireless networks will be more important for onboard entertainment, then it will for the bot to travel through traffic. In other words the bot won't need a network to operate, anymore then a human driver needs to be "online" to drive. But obviously connectivity isn't a bad thing. Networked in the sense that cars can be dispatched and their routes to various pickups could be as efficient as possible. They would only return to home base for maintenance and the like. A guy could control a fleet of autonomous cars running around the city with a laptop. Think of it how they use autons in the Amazon warehouse. Like that, but a cab company.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 11:04:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A real interesting thought is the concept of a driver's license. Would a child need a license to be put into your self driving car to be hauled off to school? It could get them there safely, and return to your garage all on its own. Would the regulations favor automated buses, but not allow to do the same with your own automated vehicle? A fully automated and networked taxi type company will be a thing to behold. Like Uber without the driver. I could see something like that putting a even bigger dent on car ownership. Costs would be so low, it could be cheaper than owning without much loss in convenience. Uber will probably go to using autonomous cars. A car will still be a worthy investment because you can still rent it out Uber style, you just don't have to be there for it. You can be at work, working and making money, while your car is out on the town, working and making money, instead of being an asset sitting in a garage idly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 11:53:43 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uber will probably go to using autonomous cars. A car will still be a worthy investment because you can still rent it out Uber style, you just don't have to be there for it. You can be at work, working and making money, while your car is out on the town, working and making money, instead of being an asset sitting in a garage idly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A real interesting thought is the concept of a driver's license. Would a child need a license to be put into your self driving car to be hauled off to school? It could get them there safely, and return to your garage all on its own. Would the regulations favor automated buses, but not allow to do the same with your own automated vehicle? A fully automated and networked taxi type company will be a thing to behold. Like Uber without the driver. I could see something like that putting a even bigger dent on car ownership. Costs would be so low, it could be cheaper than owning without much loss in convenience. Uber will probably go to using autonomous cars. A car will still be a worthy investment because you can still rent it out Uber style, you just don't have to be there for it. You can be at work, working and making money, while your car is out on the town, working and making money, instead of being an asset sitting in a garage idly. That's an interesting idea. Frankly I think we'll see all sorts of new and interesting shifts in our relationship with transportation. Some of which we probably can't imagine. As more and more autons come on the road, because of their ability for faster travel, and tighter traffic formations, humans won't even be able to drive on certain roads. The risk would be too high. I think we'll see this happen first in congested metropolitan areas, but it'll spread fast. Humans cause more accident, and will be considered too dangerous for insurance companies to insure, ...or to be allowed to "drive" on most roads. The entire transportation industry, and the government that regulates it, and enforces those regulations is going to be turned on it's heels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 12:03:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uber will probably go to using autonomous cars. A car will still be a worthy investment because you can still rent it out Uber style, you just don't have to be there for it. You can be at work, working and making money, while your car is out on the town, working and making money, instead of being an asset sitting in a garage idly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A real interesting thought is the concept of a driver's license. Would a child need a license to be put into your self driving car to be hauled off to school? It could get them there safely, and return to your garage all on its own. Would the regulations favor automated buses, but not allow to do the same with your own automated vehicle? A fully automated and networked taxi type company will be a thing to behold. Like Uber without the driver. I could see something like that putting a even bigger dent on car ownership. Costs would be so low, it could be cheaper than owning without much loss in convenience. Uber will probably go to using autonomous cars. A car will still be a worthy investment because you can still rent it out Uber style, you just don't have to be there for it. You can be at work, working and making money, while your car is out on the town, working and making money, instead of being an asset sitting in a garage idly. I don't know if I would want a drunk puking in my top dollar self driving car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 12:08:23 PM EDT
[#48]
This is the Freightliner that's currently licensed for use on public roads. I think the transition period will have regular truckers on-board, but as time goes by the need for these on-board humans will become less and less. I suspect we'll start to see these autonomous trucks hit the market in a big way sometime over the next 5-10 years.
https://youtu.be/HdSRUG4KTPA
This is going to really drive down wages, and eliminate a lot of jobs in the transportation industry. Instead of higher paid truck drivers, transportation companies will probably have service personnel based at terminals, and refueling and maintenance stops along the freight lanes. Then you'll probably have independent contractors who do this, perhaps working for various travel centers along freight lanes. So they won't be working for the transportation companies themselves, you'll just have for example Pilot truck service technicians. They'll check the seals on the freight, run diagnostics and service the tractors if necessary, and of course refuel. This will be a "new" job that's created, but it'll probably be a lower paid job, and their will be fewer of them then the drivers they replace. I really expect this to have a significant impact fairly soon. Trucking companies replace their fleet trucks after 2-4 years on average, so they'll adopt the technology fairly fast. Autons won't have the "drive hour" limits human drivers have. They'll be able to drive 24/7. They'll also be able to handle multiple cargo configurations, You'll see more 2 and 3 trailers configurations on one truck. So the cost of shipping will really drop. The profit incentive is high to get rid of individual human truck drivers. The savings by eliminating human error will be huge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 12:15:56 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the Freightliner that's currently licensed for use on public roads. I think the transition period will have regular truckers on-board, but as time goes by need for these on-board humans will become less and less. I suspect we'll start to see these autonomous trucks hit the market in a big way sometime over the next 5-10 years. https://youtu.be/HdSRUG4KTPA https://youtu.be/HdSRUG4KTPA
This is going to really drive down wages, and eliminate a lot of jobs in the transportation industry. The platoon feature... They better program that to never enter the left lane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 12:24:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's irrelevant. You have to program logic into the computer to solve any problem that could arise, that is the point of the ethicist in the article. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket And what about when the choice is between killing two people. The "Trolley" problem is an interesting example, but if the choice is between; 1. A 70 year old man in a wheel 2. A 7 year old child 3. A 25 year old woman. Who do you kill, and how do you tell a car to make that choice. A semi autonomous car has the benefit of reverting to the driver who is supposed to be paying attention and able to over ride during an emergency, but a driverless car needs to make that choice on its own, while its passenger sleeps. Further, who pays the wrongful death claim How many times, ever, does that choice happen in reality? That's irrelevant. You have to program logic into the computer to solve any problem that could arise, that is the point of the ethicist in the article. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. People talking about this "problem" don't understand how these cars are programmed. None of them have even made an attempt to, you know, ask Google or others how they deal with the problem. It's scaremonger stories. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
