[quote name="Chick" url="/t/184739/rumor-apple-preparing-to-give-tesla-a-run-for-its-money-with-new-automotive-project/120#post_2673874"]It's pretty difficult to hide under the guise of “safety concerns” with data like that.[/QUOTE]
Until they rise up and enslave humanity¡ THINK MAN, THINK!!¡
Google's LiDAR-equipped driverless vehicles have been safely navigating U.S. roads since 2012.
The company is now in talks with several major companies including Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Continental Automotive Systems, Nissan, Toyota, Audi, and Volvo.
Yet testing for driverless vehicles is open in just three states: Nevada, Florida, and California.
And while the California DMV may have already released regulations on the testing of autonomous vehicles, it missed a deadline for a second set of regulations required by Jan 1. The DMV cited “safety concerns” for the delay.
Meanwhile, Google's driverless vehicles have driven over 700,000 miles without getting into a single accident not caused by a human driver (one driverless vehicle was rear-ended, and another crashed while under human control).
For perspective, the average U.S. driver has an accident every 165,000 miles, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration, meaning the technology has proven about four times safer than human drivers.
It's pretty difficult to hide under the guise of “safety concerns” with data like that.
I was wondering what those numbers where -Thx. I tend to agree it may be closer than people think; at least a partial implementation. Complete implementation IMO is way off. IMO- if they could phase this in on major highways - say the stretch of I-5 from Livermore down to Santa Clarita as an example; that would be great to make long trips tolerable. Strawman example - Post a sign- this highway is autonomous vehicle approved (whatever that means?) for the next XXX miles. Push a button and go!
Of course there are questions to be answered- at what speed? what happens in certain weather conditions (are these systems all weather capable?). When do you pass (do you sit behind granny the whole way?)? Emergency vehicle response? How will it transition control to the human when there is problem (auto pull off to side of road)? But I would argue, for an Interstate… fairly manageable questions that could be answered soon!
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">They here and they work.</p>
...
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">Meanwhile, Google's driverless vehicles have driven over 700,000 miles without getting into a single accident not caused by a human driver (one driverless vehicle was rear-ended, and another crashed while under human control).</p>
...
Data that is statistically totally irrelevant (and insanely stupid to quote).
It is however a lot more sensible to follow one such drive: one emergency brake that was totally unnecessary because the system couldn't determain that the car from the right stopped - something every human could with ease - (just lucky that someone didn't crash into the test car), one missed speed bump (everyone bounced almost out of the car) and one emergency intervention (by a human) to prevent the car from crashing into the other lane.
All this in just a few miles. Another point was that the car was driven extremely slow and so hindering the rest of the traffic and causing potentially dangerous situations.
I once heard a (human) driver telling a story that he had an extreme accident, and he didn't understand why because he had no accident in 50 years (or so) of driving a car. The point was that he was a very bad driver and others had saved him countless times. So he had an extreme good track record (for say 700 000 miles) but that didn't say anything about the quality of driving.
Another story was about an MIT robot car years ago, it did very well in a robot car challenge and ran smoothly allong a very well defined road. Suddenly it made a sharp right turn crashed off the road into a big tree.
What happend? It's training data (of the neural network) trained something alright, but it wasn't the road, it was a distinct dark pattern that was exactly similar to a road (most of the time) and the shadow of a big tree ...
Familiarize yourself with the accelerating curve of computing power, look up "The Singularity" and get back to me.
Ha ha. The singularity is an extreme joke (didn't you get that).
Infinities (yes you have more than one) make everything possible.
Don't believe everything Ray says, he is insane you know.
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">They here and they work.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">Google's LiDAR-equipped driverless vehicles have been safely navigating U.S. roads since 2012.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">The company is now in talks with several major companies including Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Continental Automotive Systems, Nissan, Toyota, Audi, and Volvo.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">Yet testing for driverless vehicles is open in just three states: Nevada, Florida, and California.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">And while the California DMV may have already released regulations on the testing of autonomous vehicles, it missed a deadline for a second set of regulations required by Jan 1. The DMV cited “safety concerns” for the delay.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">Meanwhile, Google's driverless vehicles have driven over 700,000 miles without getting into a single accident not caused by a human driver (one driverless vehicle was rear-ended, and another crashed while under human control).</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">For perspective, the average U.S. driver has an accident every 165,000 miles, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration, meaning the technology has proven about four times safer than human drivers.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:14px;">It's pretty difficult to hide under the guise of “safety concerns” with data like that.</p>
Where were they driving?
Let's see them navigate a mayo boreen, or London on a tube strike.
And what of the owners of self parking cars, cars with cruise control, cars with traction control, cars with anti-lock breaking systems, cars with automatic transmissions, cars with airbags that are up a computer to set off, etc. Of course, you don't see these as issues because they all exist in society today, which is your problem in this discussion because you can look back to see all the small steps taking place over many years but looking forward you can't conceive the small steps over many years that will be slowly lead to a society that has cars that are capable of doing tasks that they can't currently do now. But you're not along, most of society has trouble seeing anything more than what they saw in a movie, hence [@]rob53[/@]'s comment on the subject, "...instead of trying to copy iRobot." Personally, I think it's weird that anyone would reference evil robots taking over society and enslaving the human race when having a serious discussion about the next step in automation, but there you have it.
1. I did not reference any work of fiction, Asimov's or otherwise.
2. I previously pointed out that there are numerous instances of safety equipment for motor vehicles having been driven from the U.S. market due to liability issues (I specifically referenced motorcycle helmets).
3. My use of the example of a dog was due to the fact that while a dog has some measure of autonomy, it is still regarded as property. If you somehow construed that as referring to a reference to fiction, I recommend you work on your reading comprehension.
4. Please tell me that not only are you not an attorney but that you have never so much as taken a single business law class. If you have, see if you can get your money back because you clearly failed to understand liability.
1. I did not reference any work of fiction, Asimov's or otherwise.
2. I previously pointed out that there are numerous instances of safety equipment for motor vehicles having been driven from the U.S. market due to liability issues (I specifically referenced motorcycle helmets).
3. My use of the example of a dog was due to the fact that while a dog has some measure of autonomy, it is still regarded as property. If you somehow construed that as referring to a reference to fiction, I recommend you work on your reading comprehension.
4. Please tell me that not only are you not an attorney but that you have never so much as taken a single business law class. If you have, see if you can get your money back because you clearly failed to understand liability.
1) Is your name Rob53?
2) Your myopic concerns today about an unknown future time are ridiculous. Assuming you live long enough you'll see this all become commonplace.
1) your annoyed, you see my point (show where I'm trolling)
2) examples (I might learn something, how's your Dutch by the way?)
3) read my post again
1) You attempting to be annoying ? me being annoyed. Sure, I would prefer to have a conversation with a reasonable person that isn't afraid of the inevitable, but that's life and just as you will have to constantly deal with those that know considerably more than you, I have to deal with those whose only goals are to annoy.
2) You've been given plenty in this thread.
3) No. It wasn't good the first two times, so there is no reason to expect it to be good the third time.
1) You attempting to be annoying ? me being annoyed. Sure, I would prefer to have a conversation with a reasonable person that isn't afraid of the inevitable, but that's life and just as you will have to constantly deal with those that know considerably more than you, I have to deal with those whose only goals are to annoy.
2) You've been given plenty in this thread.
3) No. It wasn't good the first two times, so there is no reason to expect it to be good the third time.
1) Inevitable, that's a joke, you should know that, it is about what's possible and the choices we make.
2) So how's your Dutch?
3) It's nice that your read it twice, but a bit sad that you didn't comprehend.
PS: It's not too late to cut yourself off from progress and get a cabin in the woods where you can write your manifesto about the evils of technology in society.
Haha. You come across like a child. Just because people of vastly more technical experience than you are rubbishing your science fiction fantasy does not either justify your original use of the ad hominem argument of Luddite or your continued use of that same "argument". These cars will never work in complex situations.
And there will be no singularity. That's effectively a religion.
Haha. You come across like a child. Just because people of vastly more technical experience than you are rubbishing your science fiction fantasy does not either justify your ad hominem of Luddite or your continued use of that same "argument". These cars will never work in complex situations.
And there will be no singularity. That's effectively a religion.
Jumping from "cars will slowly become more intelligent" to the singilarity is a pretty remarkable leap.
PS: It's not too late to cut yourself off from progress and get a cabin in the woods where you can write your manifesto about the evils of technology in society.
Haha. You come across like a child. Just because people of vastly more technical experience than you are rubbishing your science fiction fantasy does not either justify your original use of the ad hominem argument of Luddite or your continued use of that same "argument". These cars will never work in complex situations.
And there will be no singularity. That's effectively a religion.
Comments
Until they rise up and enslave humanity¡ THINK MAN, THINK!!¡
They here and they work.
Google's LiDAR-equipped driverless vehicles have been safely navigating U.S. roads since 2012.
The company is now in talks with several major companies including Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Continental Automotive Systems, Nissan, Toyota, Audi, and Volvo.
Yet testing for driverless vehicles is open in just three states: Nevada, Florida, and California.
And while the California DMV may have already released regulations on the testing of autonomous vehicles, it missed a deadline for a second set of regulations required by Jan 1. The DMV cited “safety concerns” for the delay.
Meanwhile, Google's driverless vehicles have driven over 700,000 miles without getting into a single accident not caused by a human driver (one driverless vehicle was rear-ended, and another crashed while under human control).
For perspective, the average U.S. driver has an accident every 165,000 miles, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration, meaning the technology has proven about four times safer than human drivers.
It's pretty difficult to hide under the guise of “safety concerns” with data like that.
I was wondering what those numbers where -Thx. I tend to agree it may be closer than people think; at least a partial implementation. Complete implementation IMO is way off. IMO- if they could phase this in on major highways - say the stretch of I-5 from Livermore down to Santa Clarita as an example; that would be great to make long trips tolerable. Strawman example - Post a sign- this highway is autonomous vehicle approved (whatever that means?) for the next XXX miles. Push a button and go!
Of course there are questions to be answered- at what speed? what happens in certain weather conditions (are these systems all weather capable?). When do you pass (do you sit behind granny the whole way?)? Emergency vehicle response? How will it transition control to the human when there is problem (auto pull off to side of road)? But I would argue, for an Interstate… fairly manageable questions that could be answered soon!
Data that is statistically totally irrelevant (and insanely stupid to quote).
It is however a lot more sensible to follow one such drive: one emergency brake that was totally unnecessary because the system couldn't determain that the car from the right stopped - something every human could with ease - (just lucky that someone didn't crash into the test car), one missed speed bump (everyone bounced almost out of the car) and one emergency intervention (by a human) to prevent the car from crashing into the other lane.
All this in just a few miles. Another point was that the car was driven extremely slow and so hindering the rest of the traffic and causing potentially dangerous situations.
I once heard a (human) driver telling a story that he had an extreme accident, and he didn't understand why because he had no accident in 50 years (or so) of driving a car. The point was that he was a very bad driver and others had saved him countless times. So he had an extreme good track record (for say 700 000 miles) but that didn't say anything about the quality of driving.
Another story was about an MIT robot car years ago, it did very well in a robot car challenge and ran smoothly allong a very well defined road. Suddenly it made a sharp right turn crashed off the road into a big tree.
What happend? It's training data (of the neural network) trained something alright, but it wasn't the road, it was a distinct dark pattern that was exactly similar to a road (most of the time) and the shadow of a big tree ...
Yeah, it's successful so it's irrelevant¡ :rolleyes:
Ha ha. The singularity is an extreme joke (didn't you get that).
Infinities (yes you have more than one) make everything possible.
Don't believe everything Ray says, he is insane you know.
No (it isn't), read my comment again and stop trolling.
Where were they driving?
Let's see them navigate a mayo boreen, or London on a tube strike.
1) If anyone is trolling around here it's you.
2) You could help yourself out by learning to write better.
3) The tests were successful, and no matter what you claim the data will still be there to disprove you Ludditism
WTF is that even suppose to mean? :no:
1. I did not reference any work of fiction, Asimov's or otherwise.
2. I previously pointed out that there are numerous instances of safety equipment for motor vehicles having been driven from the U.S. market due to liability issues (I specifically referenced motorcycle helmets).
3. My use of the example of a dog was due to the fact that while a dog has some measure of autonomy, it is still regarded as property. If you somehow construed that as referring to a reference to fiction, I recommend you work on your reading comprehension.
4. Please tell me that not only are you not an attorney but that you have never so much as taken a single business law class. If you have, see if you can get your money back because you clearly failed to understand liability.
Disagreeing in not trolling. In either case. That said tests can be as successful as you want by making the tests as easy as you want.
1) Is your name Rob53?
2) Your myopic concerns today about an unknown future time are ridiculous. Assuming you live long enough you'll see this all become commonplace.
1) your annoyed, you see my point (show where I'm trolling)
2) examples (I might learn something, how's your Dutch by the way?)
3) read my post again
Disagreeing without argument and intentional misunderstanding is trolling.
1) You attempting to be annoying ? me being annoyed. Sure, I would prefer to have a conversation with a reasonable person that isn't afraid of the inevitable, but that's life and just as you will have to constantly deal with those that know considerably more than you, I have to deal with those whose only goals are to annoy.
2) You've been given plenty in this thread.
3) No. It wasn't good the first two times, so there is no reason to expect it to be good the third time.
1) Inevitable, that's a joke, you should know that, it is about what's possible and the choices we make.
2) So how's your Dutch?
3) It's nice that your read it twice, but a bit sad that you didn't comprehend.
Haha. You come across like a child. Just because people of vastly more technical experience than you are rubbishing your science fiction fantasy does not either justify your original use of the ad hominem argument of Luddite or your continued use of that same "argument". These cars will never work in complex situations.
And there will be no singularity. That's effectively a religion.
Not really. Although he is being insanely stupid.
Jumping from "cars will slowly become more intelligent" to the singilarity is a pretty remarkable leap.