Driverless car

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Driverless car

Post by TSBU »

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?
Image
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Driverless car

Post by thedoc »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
thedoc wrote:
TSBU wrote:Image
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.
For me Doc, I took this post as an example where the idea of a driverless car comes from science fiction.

PhilX
And that is where it should stay, fiction.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Doc, it sounds as if your mind is already made up before the evidence is in. Would anything change your mind?

PhilX
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

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&amp

PhilX
Last edited by Philosophy Explorer on Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

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
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Driverless car

Post by thedoc »

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
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.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Driverless car

Post by thedoc »

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
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
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

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
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Driverless car

Post by thedoc »

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
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
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

thedoc wrote:
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
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.
It's either that or trusting the car manufacturers. I'll go with the government doc.

PhilX
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Driverless car

Post by thedoc »

Philosophy Explorer wrote: It's either that or trusting the car manufacturers. I'll go with the government doc.

PhilX
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
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

thedoc wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote: It's either that or trusting the car manufacturers. I'll go with the government doc.

PhilX
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.
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?)

PhilX
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Driverless car

Post by thedoc »

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
Yes there are a lot of urban legends floating around and a lot of people believe them and repeat them.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Driverless car

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

thedoc wrote:
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
Yes there are a lot of urban legends floating around and a lot of people believe them and repeat them.
Here's a good question for you. You said you wouldn't ride in an automated car unless the computer was 100% safe.
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
Post Reply