Driverless car
Re: Driverless car
I posted that because I thought it was at the level of the thread.
Who is to blame? It depends, the owner because mainentance, the one who built the car...
How will the car decide where will it go when it's going to be a crash? Well, more intelligent people is going to take that decissions (Then you can buy or not buy the car, anyway if you decide to fight it, you are going to be alone, and of course, you are going to cause more damage than a fucking car). Probably with statistics, using an authomatic learning program, of course, trying to avoid or reduce damage. The most important thing is that you are not going to decide that
How will the car see a distinction between humans and not humans?
How do we know that Driverless cars are safer?
Who is to blame? It depends, the owner because mainentance, the one who built the car...
How will the car decide where will it go when it's going to be a crash? Well, more intelligent people is going to take that decissions (Then you can buy or not buy the car, anyway if you decide to fight it, you are going to be alone, and of course, you are going to cause more damage than a fucking car). Probably with statistics, using an authomatic learning program, of course, trying to avoid or reduce damage. The most important thing is that you are not going to decide that
How will the car see a distinction between humans and not humans?
How do we know that Driverless cars are safer?
Re: Driverless car
And that is where it should stay, fiction.Philosophy Explorer wrote:For me Doc, I took this post as an example where the idea of a driverless car comes from science fiction.thedoc wrote:A TV show has little to no basis in reality, that car was operated by a human operator remotely. If you believe a TV show represents reality, there is no hope for you.TSBU wrote:
PhilX
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Driverless car
Doc, it sounds as if your mind is already made up before the evidence is in. Would anything change your mind?
PhilX
PhilX
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Driverless car
Here's some more sci-fi for you Doc; oops I mean former sci-fi. This just barely scratches the surface as I've read far more than this as to what's coming up:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/22/six ... portation/
Taxi anyone?:
https://www.inverse.com/article/22602-a ... na?amp&
PhilX
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/22/six ... portation/
Taxi anyone?:
https://www.inverse.com/article/22602-a ... na?amp&
PhilX
Last edited by Philosophy Explorer on Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Driverless car
Doc, you're too late as driverless cars have been around for about 100 years:
http://qz.com/814019/driverless-cars-are-100-years-old/
PhilX
http://qz.com/814019/driverless-cars-are-100-years-old/
PhilX
Re: Driverless car
My mind is made up based on what I know about computers. When a computer is truly autonomus and can reason for itself, then I would consider a driverless car to be safe, but as long as the computer programming is based on a human operators input, I wouldn't trust them to be better than a human operator.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Doc, it sounds as if your mind is already made up before the evidence is in. Would anything change your mind?
PhilX
Re: Driverless car
None of those are driverless in the same sense as the ones being proposed now. They all had a human operator controlling them via radio control. The ones proposed now are supposed to be self controlled, but they all rely on human input for their driving decisions.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Doc, you're too late as driverless cars have been around for about 100 years:
http://qz.com/814019/driverless-cars-are-100-years-old/
PhilX
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Driverless car
Road conditions are a factor too (especially in terms of rain, snow and ice).
I'm aware of the negative things being said about Solar Roadways on the internet. However I caution against a rush to judgment as it's just getting started with its testing and studies and I'm sure the government will have more to say which has been supportive (plus you have other countries with their own programs):
http://m.startribune.com/company-s-sola ... 398604751/
PhilX
I'm aware of the negative things being said about Solar Roadways on the internet. However I caution against a rush to judgment as it's just getting started with its testing and studies and I'm sure the government will have more to say which has been supportive (plus you have other countries with their own programs):
http://m.startribune.com/company-s-sola ... 398604751/
PhilX
Re: Driverless car
So far the government's track record has not been good, most of the programs the gov. has gotten involved in, they have screwed up real good. I don't trust the gov. to get it right, usually they do more harm than good.Philosophy Explorer wrote: However I caution against a rush to judgment as it's just getting started with its testing and studies and I'm sure the government will have more to say which has been supportive
PhilX
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Driverless car
It's either that or trusting the car manufacturers. I'll go with the government doc.thedoc wrote:So far the government's track record has not been good, most of the programs the gov. has gotten involved in, they have screwed up real good. I don't trust the gov. to get it right, usually they do more harm than good.Philosophy Explorer wrote: However I caution against a rush to judgment as it's just getting started with its testing and studies and I'm sure the government will have more to say which has been supportive
PhilX
PhilX
Re: Driverless car
The manufacture has a vested interest in keeping customers alive to spend money on their products. Not so with the gov, they are only interested in your vote, and they can get that even if you're dead, and sometimes it's easier after you are dead.Philosophy Explorer wrote: It's either that or trusting the car manufacturers. I'll go with the government doc.
PhilX
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Driverless car
I don't buy that one doc. I've read stories about sales reps keeping prospects as hostages until the prospects agreed to buy a car. All the manufacturers care about is your money (why did Tesla wait to put out Autopilot 2.0 if it's so concerned about safety?)thedoc wrote:The manufacture has a vested interest in keeping customers alive to spend money on their products. Not so with the gov, they are only interested in your vote, and they can get that even if you're dead, and sometimes it's easier after you are dead.Philosophy Explorer wrote: It's either that or trusting the car manufacturers. I'll go with the government doc.
PhilX
PhilX
Re: Driverless car
Yes there are a lot of urban legends floating around and a lot of people believe them and repeat them.Philosophy Explorer wrote: I don't buy that one doc. I've read stories about sales reps keeping prospects as hostages until the prospects agreed to buy a car.
PhilX
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Driverless car
Here's a good question for you. You said you wouldn't ride in an automated car unless the computer was 100% safe.thedoc wrote:Yes there are a lot of urban legends floating around and a lot of people believe them and repeat them.Philosophy Explorer wrote: I don't buy that one doc. I've read stories about sales reps keeping prospects as hostages until the prospects agreed to buy a car.
PhilX
Yet the vast majority of cars today don't have computers that drive you around. It's a reasonable assumption that you ride around in such human-driven cars and they do have accidents. It seems you're holding the computer to a much higher standard. Why?
PhilX