|
CJacobs posted:Well, that's true at least an accident at your own hands make you liable, an accident by a automated pilot makes them liable why on earth would you ever want an accident where afterwards you have to say "my bad"
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:I don't get you guys saying you'd flat out never trust a car to drive itself. At some point in the future these cars will be widespread and stats will be readily available. It's reasonable to assume that these stats will drift towards 0 driverless car deaths as the tech matures. In that scenario, when it has been proven completely safe, you still wouldn't get on board? when it becomes as safe as air travel, sure. and even highly automated airliners have humans at the controls at all times, who presumably understand how the automated systems work and what their limitations are. so i would still want to sit in the driver's seat. of course, that won't happen; you'll have to make manual moves using your phone probably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Madcosby posted:an accident at your own hands make you liable, an accident by a automated pilot makes them liable Yeah fuckin right, as if any court will ever buy "it was the automated car's fault" when it's at all possible for a human to stop the car, nobody is going to successfully sue Tesla for an automatic car accident because of the "why didn't you do something" defense so many people itt have already employed CJacobs fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
akulanization posted:let me understand this... I mean yeah why not. So suppose you've got yourself a fleet of driverless cars and you create an Uber like service. You control the fleet and can ensure software and hardware upgrades happen fleet wide. Once this is established, you endlessly AB test new code and descend the death gradient to 0. I don't think that's an unreasonable or unworkable strategy and I think that's exactly what Google has in mind. Also I don't think most people will own cars in the future and a driverless Uber service will end up being far more economical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Madcosby posted:an accident at your own hands make you liable, an accident by a automated pilot makes them [i.e. the manufacturers of the auto] liable BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA HAAA *wheeze* HAHAHAHAHA oh my God you actually think this that is so adorable
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:I mean yeah why not. So suppose you've got yourself a fleet of driverless cars and you create an Uber like service. You control the fleet and can ensure software and hardware upgrades happen fleet wide. Once this is established, you endlessly AB test new code and descend the death gradient to 0. Yup, no poo poo. Also, this will be for, in America, people in an urban environment. People in a rural environment will still have there "manual" cars. Europe though? Holy gently caress I can see such a densely packed region adopting this is a hummingbird heart beat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA HAAA *wheeze* Devil's Advocate. Who owns the car?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Oh, well that makes it totally ok then
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
one of my favorite movies of all time lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Devil's Advocate. it's doesn't matter the corporation, like the AI it produced, is a perfect, immortal machine, basically incapable of wrongdoing the onus will always be on the human in the car no matter what; clearly he did not follow the maintenance procedures to the letter and this somehow lead by some implausible causality to the accident; rain obscured the sensors, so it was on the driver for deciding to go drive that day; take your pick if you think such convenient legal backdoors aren't being engineered in long before the first automatic car hits the assembly line you're dumber than I thought
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:I had to write Elon Musk a personal letter in my SpaceX application, that's my claim to Elon Musk fame. Coulda been a rocket scientist. lmao, all of his companies are basically salt mines that pay less than Google or Apple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:it's doesn't matter BULLpoo poo! If someone else owns the car, and it is self driving, they are liable for the damage it causes. Same thing for a taxi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Prettz posted:The point is, when you're talking about "maybe this shouldn't be allowed", it's not adding to the lethality of driving on the road by any appreciable amount. It's crazy that society tolerates how deadly the roads are already. It's adding an entirely new way for you to die and, less likely, for you to take other people out with you that has been completely unheard of in our society until recent years. I would say the implications of that and the effects it could have if it were openly tested by the masses are more important than the raw statistics of how lethal it is per million miles or whathaveyou.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:it's doesn't matter Agreed, corporations have all kinds of convenient legal backdoors engineered into their products and services, that's why nobody ever wins frivolous lawsuits vs. large companies
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:It's adding an entirely new way for you to die
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:BULLpoo poo! airlines have already mastered the technique of handing the blame down to the pilot for anything that goes wrong for decades, even if it arises as a directly result of their own policies all automakers have to do is learn those lessons for themselves and apply that to any accident that arises from an automated vehicle
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
etalian posted:lmao, all of his companies are basically salt mines that pay less than Google or Apple. yeah I went to FB for twice the pay and half the hours and none of the burnout
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:Agreed, corporations have all kinds of convenient legal backdoors engineered into their products and services, that's why nobody ever wins frivolous lawsuits vs. large companies Devil's advocate. Most cases are decided "out of court" and no actual "legal" recourse happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:It's adding an entirely new way for you to die and, less likely, for you to take other people out with you that has been completely unheard of in our society until recent years. I would say the implications of that are more important than the raw statistics of how lethal it is per million miles or whathaveyou. Morons like you are the reason why the entire world sucks, "this isn't a statistically significant danger at all, but it's new and interesting, let's spend a shitload of time and resources dissecting every minute detail of it", htfh
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:airlines have already mastered the technique of handing the blame down to the pilot for anything that goes wrong for decades, even if it arises as a directly result of their own policies Airlines still pay for the survivors or the deceased families. A simply google search proves this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:yeah I went to FB for twice the pay and half the hours and none of the burnout
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Prettz posted:Wait, you should step back a second and maybe explain this part more. What is there to explain. Self-driving cars didn't exist until recently, ergo it is a new concept of how a person can get their rear end killed, which is why people have arguments about whose fault it would be if it happened AugmentedVision posted:Morons like you are the reason why the entire world sucks, "this isn't a statistically significant danger at all, but it's new and interesting, let's spend a shitload of time and resources dissecting every minute detail of it", htfh what are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
I'd rather just drive my car, I've been doing it for over 30 years and it's not that loving hard. What would be cool would be to have cars that you can summon to you and then get in and drive. On second thought just get rid of cars and make a goddamn matter transporter already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:yeah I went to FB for twice the pay and half the hours and none of the burnout can you get me a job there
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Prettz posted:lollll you work for facebook? worked there for two years before going back into finance for even fewer hours and more pay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:I mean yeah why not. So suppose you've got yourself a fleet of driverless cars and you create an Uber like service. You control the fleet and can ensure software and hardware upgrades happen fleet wide. Once this is established, you endlessly AB test new code and descend the death gradient to 0. This assumes that there is a point or set of points on your landscape where the death quotient is 0, and that you can actually find those absolute minima through blind iteration (rather than local minima). EDIT: I should specify that I'm speaking about finding these minima in a reasonable time frame. Even then you are looking at a massively complex system, where there can be hundreds of actors whose actions can create a hazard. Then you have to account for irreducible noise caused by wear and tear, repairs, different actor types, ect. Even if you can conquer all those problems, all computers have glitches and no software is going to work perfectly indefinitely. I'll buy that robots will one day drive much more reliably than humans. I remain virtually certain that even if every car on the road was a robot driven by a very safe algorithm, some amount of fatal accidents will occur. EDIT: Also this scenario relies on one algorithm being used, which probably runs afoul of existing antitrust laws. If you have more than one kind of robot car on the road, that would seem to make the job even harder. akulanization fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:worked there for two years before going back into finance for even fewer hours and more pay. can you get me a job there
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Airlines still pay for the survivors or the deceased families. the point is this idea that automated cars are somehow going to magically lift onus from the shoulders of drivers and finally shift it to those money-grubbing automakers is what I'm laughing at here because it definitely will not and this is to a dead certainty part of the calculus they're doing right now to get ready for it ffs we live in a world where VW fooled the state of California's emissions tests for years, keeping drivers at fault for accident is going to be child's play in comparison
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:what are you talking about Statistics of how deadly something is ARE the most important thing, bitch. The world would be a much better place if news and politicians spent their time talking about heart disease and car accidents (normal ones) instead of Zika and "gator eats baby".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:What is there to explain. Self-driving cars didn't exist until recently, ergo it is a new concept of how a person can get their rear end killed, which is why people have arguments about whose fault it would be if it happened
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:can you get me a job there If you have a relatively decent resume I could almost certainly get you an interview but that's it (esp since I don't work there anymore). we'd have to pretend to be friends. want to be my friend?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
We interrupt this Internet slap fight for new details in the case:quote:Frank Baressi, 62, the driver of the truck and owner of Okemah Express LLC, said the Tesla driver was "playing Harry Potter on the TV screen" at the time of the crash and driving so quickly that "he went so fast through my trailer I didn't see him. Cranium Decapitosa! pathetic little tramp fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Prettz posted:It's not much new. "Car system malfunctions and crashes the car" isn't new. It's an additional degree on that spectrum. Fair enough on that one AugmentedVision posted:Statistics of how deadly something is ARE the most important thing, bitch. The world would be a much better place if news and politicians spent their time talking about heart disease and car accidents (normal ones) instead of Zika and "gator eats baby". The problem is that the points that make up those statistics don't exist in a vacuum. If a person's automatic car crashes into a manually driven car and both people die, is that 2 deaths caused by the automatic car? how does that affect the statistics? there are too many factors imo for the raw statistic itself to mean all that much unless the only metric you're using is "automatic car crashes that have resulted in 1 or more death" in which case that's so generalized that what's the point You can quantify things like "x americans get heart disease every year", but it's a lot harder to quantify automatic car accidents in a way that a) means something and b) falls under the whole umbrella
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:Statistics of how deadly something is ARE the most important thing, bitch. The world would be a much better place if news and politicians spent their time talking about heart disease and car accidents (normal ones) instead of Zika and "gator eats baby". But what a boring "news cycle" that would be. Much more interesting for the dumb fucks who watch and listen to news all the time if there's something they can speculate about. CJacobs posted:The problem is that the points that make up those statistics don't exist in a vacuum. If a person's automatic car crashes into a manually driven car and both people die, is that 2 deaths caused by the automatic car? how does that affect the statistics? there are too many factors imo for the raw statistic itself to mean all that much unless the only metric you're using is "automatic car crashes that have resulted in 1 or more death" in which case that's so generalized that what's the point case in point
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
ORIGINAL GANGSTER posted:If you have a relatively decent resume I could almost certainly get you an interview but that's it (esp since I don't work there anymore). we'd have to pretend to be friends. want to be my friend? i appreciate the offer but i dont want to move to west coast
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:i appreciate the offer but i dont want to move to west coast you must become one with the western biomass, friend
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
akulanization posted:I'll buy that robots will one day drive much more reliably than humans. I remain virtually certain that even if every car on the road was a robot driven by a very safe algorithm, some amount of fatal accidents will occur. Yup no poo poo. Blue screens still happen. ANIME IS BLOOD posted:the point is this idea that automated cars are somehow going to magically lift onus from the shoulders of drivers and finally shift it to those money-grubbing automakers is what I'm laughing at here And there is a multi-billion settlement happening right now to prove my side of it. Look. No system, made by fallible men, is by definition perfect. We all understand, but may not accept, the definition of "acceptable losses". Self driving cars will lower those numbers, and in the grand scheme of things, we all would consider, in general, a lesser amount of loss of human life, to be a "good thing" Now, instead of drunk drivers thinning our herd, it's "algorithm error". And when the owner of said algorithm pays out a lesser amount then current insurance payouts, guess what? That's a good thing for the "herd" as well. This is a purely analytical look at the system. In very plain words. *beep Boop* Lesser loss of life and loss of capital is a "good" thing. *Beep Boop* VendaGoat fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:Statistics of how deadly something is ARE the most important thing, bitch. The world would be a much better place if news and politicians spent their time talking about heart disease and car accidents (normal ones) instead of Zika and "gator eats baby". While true, that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a robust set of safety regulations on machines that can, even rarely, kill their operator and others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:But what a boring "news cycle" that would be. Much more interesting for the dumb fucks who watch and listen to news all the time if there's something they can speculate about. Are you seriously going to bat for "generalizing an issue into raw no-context numbers is the best way to tell people about it"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:But what a boring "news cycle" that would be. Much more interesting for the dumb fucks who watch and listen to news all the time if there's something they can speculate about. Yeah and if politicians addressed actual problems, the voters would go "yeah the entire nation actually agrees with each other, this is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. Oh, you have no actual useful skills or knowledge and have no idea where to even begin? Why do you exist?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:50
|
|