Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 Perfect example. Actually, that is a good one. As I mentioned above this place makes me think. The repeat of "John Henry" with an autonomous car vs the best of Form4 humans is almost not too far off. Of course, the autonomous vehicle won't do the things that human drivers do that so often result in the spectacular wrecks and flaming deaths from human drives taking huge risks. That's why it will be interesting. Remember, John Henry won his contest, but died in doing so. The toaster steel driver won the war if not the battle. I look forward to it! Should be fun and a lot of money changing hands. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 But the AV cars with no limits will be a whole new sport and proving ground. Since AVs won't take dumb risks and nobody is going to program them to risk human life, mixed racing isn't in the cards. While we are at it, lets outlaw mountain climbing, skydiving, hunting, football, bicycle riding (unless the bikes are powered by your safe driving system), and taking a bath (those nasty slips in the tub). We can all become eunuchs, but safe eunuchs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Forget Volvo marketing brochures in understanding where the tech is, listen to Volvo R&D: "We first have to prove that self-driving cars can be made sufficiently safe for ordinary customers on a limited amount of roads under limited conditions. Our ambition is to achieve that in 2017," says Peter Mertens, Volvo's senior vice president for research and development. "After that a huge amount of work remains" before self-driving technology is available for all, adds Mertens, complaining that "this is sometimes neglected in public discussion" of autonomous cars. That Infiniti I showed above, the driver of that vehicle drove it for 35 miles. His thoughts: it hugs the paint far too often and the steering lacks any feel at all. Parking, lane detection, and adaptive cruise are all cool - they don't come close to replacing a human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 While we are at it, lets outlaw mountain climbing, skydiving, hunting, football, bicycle riding (unless the bikes are powered by your safe driving system), and taking a bath (those nasty slips in the tub). We can all become eunuchs, but safe eunuchs. No argument in that. You are just sniping. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 Forget Volvo marketing brochures in understanding where the tech is, listen to Volvo R&D: It's yet another one that simply says we are several years ahead of where we were a couple of years ago and from it I believe the 10 year transition I originally predicted based on much less evidence was too conservative. One must expect spokesmen to be very careful with their wording and that one is worded very cautiously. It's clear the builders have already learned what I learned here, that many are dead set against progress in this area and have great fear about it. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) While we are at it, lets outlaw mountain climbing, skydiving, hunting, football, bicycle riding (unless the bikes are powered by your safe driving system), and taking a bath (those nasty slips in the tub). We can all become eunuchs, but safe eunuchs. No argument in that. You are just sniping. Dave Because I do not share your wish to allow technology to rule our lives, I am sniping? Perhaps arguments about personal freedom and autonomy are irrelevant to you, but not to many thinking persons. It is all part of the same tautology that allows the government to pass such repulsive legislation as the "Patriot Act." There is nothing patriotic about thoughtlessly or cowardly trading freedom for security. I am sorry you can't follow this thought process. I can understand your disagreeing, or having a different line in the sand...but, "sniping?" This reminds me of my earlier career. I worked in a high tech/high risk industry. Management decisions were left to those who were technologically most proficient. They became enamored with the technology and ignored the human factors, such as the impacts on people, secondary effects of technological decisions and connections between the interfaces. They were shut down after an accident which could have caused countless deaths within hundreds of miles. The point is simply that the increasing reliance on automation and AI, at the expense of human interaction and control assumes that a machine, no matter how advanced, can make the necessary connections to supplant the human brain. AI is not the equivalent of the human thought process and speed of computation should not be confused with the quality of the end product. Once again Malllette, I find your dismissive and arrogant repsonse to be offensive, but not surprising. It is indicative of a myopic world view. Edited March 24, 2015 by eth2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Because I do not share your wish to allow technology to rule our lives, I am sniping? Perhaps arguments about personal freedom and autonomy are irrelevant to you, but not to many thinking persons. It is all part of the same tautology that allows the government to pass such repulsive legislation as the "Patriot Act." There is nothing patriotic about thoughtlessly or cowardly trading freedom for security. I am sorry you can't follow this thought process. I can understand your disagreeing, or having a different line in the sand...but, "sniping?" Please point out where I have indicated that technology should "rule" our lives. My bet is that my devotion to individual freedom exceeds all but a few. We are in VIOLENT agreement about the "Patriot Act." The moment I saw the name I knew it was designed to enslave. Once again Malllette, I find your dismiss and arrogant reposne to be offensive, but not surprising. Apologies. I am used to debating without taking or giving offense. None was intended. My use of "sniping" was as a debate device, like a red herring, tautology, etc. I appreciate your letting me know of your displeasure. I like you...and all those involved here. If I were prone to being offended I'd have run away long ago. I have said, and will continue to say, I do not engage in a discussion like this to educate anyone, but to learn from others. And learn I have. I know of at least one individual who has clearly stated in the past they do not like me. Lord knows why as they don't know me. There is at least one more that if you looked at our exchanges over the years you'd assume we'd poison the other drink in a heartbeat...when, in fact, I love him like a brother as he's enriched my life through strong debate. There is not a single soul on these forums I do not respect...and like. Life is too short... Dave Edited March 24, 2015 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) If your dismissing my response as "sniping" was not meant to be disrespectful, then disregard all but my substantive comments. As I said, I lived through a nightmare in which technology replaced sound thinking. The engineers became so involved with the technology that they disregarded the intangibles which eventually caused a failure to understand the secondary consequences of a systems failure. The technology, while giving an accurate system by system analysis of the problem and their current state, could not adequately analyze the root cause of the problem. Upon restart the problem reoccurred twice. Thereafter, the regulatory agency stepped in, determined that management was not competent to safely run the facility, and shut it down at a cost exceeding $1,000,000 per day. It was only after a remarkable leader (an ex nuclear sub commander and Naval Academy grad) took over, realigned the management structure by placing the best technologists in tech positions, and the best hybrid employees (management skills + tech experience) in leadership/decision-making roles, that the facility returned to operation. Thereafter, it became a model for the industry UNTIL he moved to a different company and the CEO replaced him with another techno-nerd. It fell apart within three years. I fear technology which is not overseen by the human brain. I fear those who do not understand the differences between speed of computation and decision-making. I fear our willingness to place an inordinate value on "safety" over freedom, and human responsibility. The thought of programing a car and crawling into the back seat for a nap is in line with my fears. Do we allow pilots to fall asleep even though the flight is for all intents and purposes "automated?" Done with my rant. Thanks for listening. Edited March 24, 2015 by eth2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Of course, the autonomous vehicle won't do the things that human drivers do that so often result in the spectacular wrecks and flaming deaths from human drives taking huge risks. That's why it will be interesting. LOL, your comment reminds me of another thread, about building no.3 and the big conspiracy theory.... and that explanation came with science, and a herd of experts wackos. If I'm not mistaken, I think you were the first or second in line to jump on that sinking ship. I think you're jumping the gun again by being a true believer in technology that has yet to be invented (perfected, so to speak), yet to tested outside a controlled environment, yet to be implemented (the way you want it), and on top of all that, you collected all your information from the salesmen selling it...... I think AnarchyBoy nailed it, with his boyish naivety comment, but that's just my opinion too. I embrace technology, I truly do,.... but that totally autonomous dog won't hunt without $pecialized lane$, it will not share the road and as long as there are people controlling their own vehicles along side it. There's no one test, and there's no amount of tests that can cover every possible scenario. At best, we will continue to see some gimmicks, some mechanical, some electrical and some magnetic technological improvements, things like cars parking themselves, AV enhanced cruise control, improved braking, faster shifting, etc. etc...... but I just can't see or refuse to see a totally autonomous cars making the seen in our lifetime. As for you comment about F1 drivers, you are obviously unaware of the Grand Prix Drivers Association, when and why it was formed, the changes they've brought to the sport. And you are obviously completely unaware of how long it's been since a F1 driver has died as a result of the risk he took on the track..... A. Senna was the last one, and that was 1994. If you want to better understand the sport and understand the dangers that are F1, I recommend you watch a documentary called "1". It will enlighten you. Edited March 24, 2015 by Gilbert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 If your dismissing my response as "sniping" was not meant to be disrespectful, then disregard all but my substantive comments. Disrespect was the farthest thing from my mind. I just saw the issues you raised as personal risks unrelated to social behavior. I believe a person should be free to pour gasoline on themselves and burn to death on their front lawn if that's what they want to do and they have somebody handy with a hose to ensure it doesn't spread. Seriously! But the highways are NOT personal. That's why there are speed limits and lane markings. In the future, these limits on freedom of travel will disappear as autonomous vehicles have no need for them. Whether you agree that will happen or not do you see why I used the debate term "sniping?" Actually, it's probably more properly characterized as a red herring. In any event I was just making a referee call as I saw it. Nothing personal at all. The engineers became so involved with the technology that they disregarded the intangibles which eventually caused a failure to understand the secondary consequences of a systems failure. Pretty much precisely what happened with Challenger, is it not? Regardless of the pushback and how I am characterized as a "true believe," I remain a skeptic until I have actually experienced it. As I mentioned above, Autarchists video of the guys in the Q50 hands off made my butt pucker. It's going to take a while to get used to this but I am ready to do so. One can either embrace change or be overrun by it. I step into elevators all the time and trust my fate to fail safe systems and computers. When I was little, ALL elevators had humans running them. First, with rheostats. But when automatic elevators were installed the operators remained for a time because people felt more comfortable with them...even though they had zero control and were simply pushing buttons. That's true today with a lot of our technology, and we have a lot of people simply pushing buttons for us to make us feel better. We'll get over it. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) I still simply fail to understand the anger, fear, and denial. It is already here, and will spread. It's fairly obvious big business is a lot more sanguine that you guys both about the technology as well as people's willingness to adapt. Let me explain why some people aren't convinced that totally autonomous vehicles are a good thing, and why some are angry about this. Do you remember 16 years ago when airbags were mandated? The promise was that 10,000 lives a year would be saved by the use of airbags. !6 years later guess how many lives were actually saved? About 14,000 total! That's less than 10% of what was promised! Airbags have added approximately $1700 to the cost of a car, averaged over the years. Guess what? Companies that make airbags have made lots of money off this. Guess what else? Data shows that seatbelts alone work better than a combination of seatbelts and airbags: https://www.amstat.org/newsroom/pdfs/WhoWantsAirbags.pdf Since seatbelts alone are more effective than the combination of belts and bags, it is evident that airbags can, and actually do, kill people rather than save lives in some instances. So who is pushing these autonomous vehicles? Auto manufacturers who will make lots of money from this. You have brought up Elon Musk of Tesla as a proponent and innovator in this field. Of course he's in favor of this - he stands to make (another) fortune from this technology. Another group in favor of autonomous vehicles are the do-gooders who buy into the manufacturers' bullshit about how many lives will be saved, just like the people who stood to make money off of airbags convinced people to make airbags mandatory by underestimating or lying about how many lives airbags would save. Facts are, nobody knows how many lives, if any, will be spared if this technology becomes widespread. Edited March 24, 2015 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 "NOBODY needs a personal computer!!" in 1982? I started on "PCs" in 1976. By 1979 I was dreaming and talking a lot to people about it. If you think the laughter at some of my thoughts here is loud, you should have heard people then as to why ANYONE would want a computer. I've developed a pretty thick skin over the years... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) DR, I didn't quote anything you said as none of it is relevant IMHO. Airbags were mandated. AVs will be purchased voluntarily as they already are. The clear excitement of those guys in the video earlier tells you how it's going to go. There is no option for the sellers to not make the promises real. If they don't, they are out of business. The first death or serious injury will occur, probably in the not too distant future. Maybe this year even with people already pulling stunts like they did in that video. Just having a smart car doesn't make the person inside any smarter. Maybe even somebody getting drunk, stupid, and pushing the wheel back and forth just to see what it will do. The cry will go up "SEE! SEE! It doesn't work!" and there will be pauses, delays, and suits. Then we will move on. Even at 90% better than a human, which they may or may not be yet, that means death or injury in one is inevitable soon. It's how things work. Dave Edited March 24, 2015 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I wonder if you guys were the one saying, "NOBODY needs a personal computer!!" in 1982? No, I was not. As far as the 90%, 95%...arguments, all I can say is no attribution, no need for comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Although I don't want to lose hands on driving, I think the arguments against Dave's position are extremely weak, too personal, and don't actually recognize what is going on in the industry. Wrong. The arguments against Dave's position - that we will have fully autonomous cars and human-driven cars will be gone - are based on a variety of legal, ethical, and technological concerns that can be cited. When the proponents of the technology say we won't see and don't have the technology to delivery fully autonomous cars before 2030 and Dave summarily dismisses it and claims we will be there in a couple years, it is Dave that doesn't recognize the complications. I wonder if you guys were the one saying, "NOBODY needs a personal computer!!" in 1982? I was a proponent then and have been involved in technology my whole life - I was writing computer programs before 1982. Good luck with that argument. All the largest technology companies in the world are investing big in the "car platform" and that includes all this autonomous driving business. Right, and they are all saying the same thing we have said. The rub in all this is that driving is a regulated activity, and that means 50 state legislators must get involved as well as the Federal government. Correct, and if Dave reviews Volvo's test in Goteburg and discovers that this technology will give (does give) the government the key to directly command your car, he may dislike big brother even more. He would also find the test was very limited and the constraints (divided highway with markings and magnets being just one key) demonstrate it will be a long time before it is everywhere.... just like Volvo's R&D guy stated. I am not really sure how to pin Dave down on what he is predicting. But, if any of his prediction involves legal mandates, I think you are adding many years to the project. No doubt these cars will start coming to the market in the very near future. But, there's also no doubt you will be hands-on driving if you want well into the '20s. Assisted systems are already in the market. 2030 is the year manufacturers are talking about class 3 autonomy being relatively prevalent which still requires hands-on driving at times or a human operator to intervene because the systems won't be full-time. Most drivers are incompetent. Yeah... and the ones coding these systems have even less competency. Something like 90% of the drivers are still "pumping the brakes" in a panic stop in cars that are equipped with anti-lockers. I think you made this up because most people today don't understand why they would pump the brakes anyway. They let off the brake when the abs pumps because they are scared and then hit the brake again, repeating the process. Insurers will easily recognize that on average, the computers will reduce accidents. That's really a no-brainer. Read insurer reports. Accidents will be reduced. They also cite the increased risk that the destruction associated with the remaining accidents will increase. Read FBI reports that warn the technology will result in national security concerns. Here is reality. These systems per Volvo will arrive incrementally. The Volvo's under test "will be equipped with seven radar units, seven cameras, a dozen ultrasound sensors, a laser scanner, a GPS system and a wireless connection to enable it to communicate with a Volvo-maintained traffic control center." Not much to go wrong there, is there? And those Volvo's can only manage to operate under clear weather conditions on a prepared and designated 30 mile stretch of road and can't be operated where there is cross-traffic. People will accept certain things but 65% (per the automobile industry) of people do not want nor trust fully autonomous vehicles. Audi - one of the leaders - states there will always be human involvement at some level. Dave's eager to buy his chauffeur and thinks its any day now. Others of us like to drive our cars. Some people like electric cars and others don't. We don't have the infrastructure to support electric cars yet somehow there is this belief the infrastructure is in place for iRobot. Some of us don't want to give the government or any other entity the ability to regularly monitor and interfere in our lives; Dave will be happy to suddenly have advertisements and official public service announcements getting his attention while riding around in the back of his soul-less transport. Edited March 24, 2015 by Autarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Yes, that's a real legal, ethical and technological concern, AutoChrist. Ah, back to the usual behavior. I have provided multiple references (cites to at least a dozen sources) so don't bother with your johnny-come-lately personal attacks. I find Dave's enthusiasm and eagerness to be naive and boyish; similar to my desire to have an Iron Man suit and take to the skies. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't impugn his character in the least. See the difference between your responses and mine? Of course not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) This should make your day. http://www.technolog...s-hybrid-drive/ That didn't look like 30 years in the future. I am skeptical enough to have looked pretty hard to see if it was, in fact, some sort of gag. Seriously. Tell me that isn't autonomy. Yes, limited where it might be used...but by definition, i.e. no human intervention, total autonomy. If you disagree due to limits on range, conditions, or time then you'll also insist the Wright Brothers flight wasn't a real flight and airplanes were still at least 30 years in the future. And, like it or not, things move along at least 10 times faster now. Dave Edited March 24, 2015 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Early speculation is that the Airbus that crashed in Switzerland today had a computer related malfunction and the pilots were unable to override the automated systems. The speculation arises from what appears to be a controlled, but very fast, decent without a change in direction over eight minutes. As the plane failed to turn away from the mountains, which is one of the first thing an experienced pilot would have done according to early reports by expert commentators, it crashed into those mountains. The plane also passed over several airports and continued into the mountains. Last December, a different Airbus came close to crashing after the automated systems, relying on a defective sensing system misguided the aircraft and blocked the pilots from taking control until the last second. So much for machine over man. Please keep your automated car off my highway. Edited March 24, 2015 by eth2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) This should make your day. http://www.technolog...s-hybrid-drive/ That didn't look like 30 years in the future. I am skeptical enough to have looked pretty hard to see if it was, in fact, some sort of gag. Seriously. Tell me that isn't autonomy. Yes, limited where it might be used...but by definition, i.e. no human intervention, total autonomy. That was real. You also would die in that car if you failed to take control. It stays within marked lines. It slows down when a vehicle comes into sight. If the lines get adjusted (ie, construction zone) or don't exist, you are screwed. If a car comes at you head-on, you are screwed. If the car ahead brakes in an emergency, you are screwed. Do you want to see a nice picture of a 'autonomous' Volvo that rear-ended a semi-truck? It is quite the warning. It is the degree of autonomy that is in question. The experts state that a fully-autonomous car won't be seen before 2030 because the technology doesn't exist. Per Volvo - again - The company stresses that the vehicles — which could be ready for the consumer market as early as 2020 if the necessary traffic and liability rules and regulations are in place — are not fully autonomous. Despite the low-speed Google autonomous vehicle, the highway legal driverless car with no steering wheel or other controls is still a thing of science fiction films. Partial autonomy - level 3 - is here. That isn't a self-driving car - it is a car that requires a human pilot to take over in various circumstances. Can you largely self-pilot on a marked, divided highway? Yes. In the city? Nope. In the country? Not a chance. The answer quite simply is to build an elevated road for all those interested in being commuters. For the rest of us drivers, leave us to the normal roads. Edited March 24, 2015 by Autarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 So, you declare that car was not autonomous? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.