Would you trust a computer with your life? Apple Car reportedly to have no steering wheel or pedals.

[CommanderAlex]

4 hours ago, RevTadd said:

There was a time when people said the same thing about automatic elevators without human attendants; I doubt even 0.5% of the population these days has any issues with riding elevators. Full self-driving isn't quite ready yet today, but in as soon as 5 years from now I wouldn't see myself taking any more risk getting into a self-driving car as I do in about half of the ubers I take.

You're talking about a metal box going up and down a confined space...not a vehicle traveling at 70 MPH. 

 

I really don't want to see self driving cards unless the user is able to take control if the systems fail and need a manual override to try and control the vehicle for safety reasons. 

[Stahlmann]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Bad idea, as things curretnly stand there are already gaping holes in the isolation of infotainment and mission critical parts of the vehicle. AI's talking over the internet? Hell no, thats like a wet dream for hackers....  (the industry is famous for their lousy implementations)

Self driving cars need to communicate. The sensors will only use the information they get from the car right in front of them and right behind them. You need them to know what all the surrounding cars are up to if they should make good decisions. Just like we are (even though some people fail miserably at that task).

[Quackers101]

Could, if there was a monitor to show and having a "handbrake".

but not sure for how long and depends on the road.

[Mark Kaine]

27 minutes ago, Spindel said:

Funny you mention pilots. 
 

One anecdote I have is a former colleges add that is a pilot. His response to autonomonous driving is ”Will never happen”. 

Well, ask him again in a couple of years.

 

25 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Fully self driving cars won't be a thing unless ALL the vehicles can talk to each

I can see that being a requirement (its even likely) but that doesn't mean there can't be old-school 'know it better" human drivers... the ai of the other cars won't care as long they can see this potentially dangerous and erratic vehicle at all times (which they can/will)

[Mark Kaine]

38 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Bad idea, as things curretnly stand there are already gaping holes in the isolation of infotainment and mission critical parts of the vehicle. AI's talking over the internet? Hell no, thats like a wet dream for hackers....  (the industry is famous for their lousy implementations)

Where did he say anything about internet  - thats indeed a bad idea (which is why I can see apple etc going this route obviously, lol gotta be "meta") the way these cars communicate the sensible way is over direct radio signals, mind you that isn't even 100% necessary,  but it does help to know where each car in the vincity is exactly for sure. 

 

 

36 minutes ago, CommanderAlex said:

You're talking about a metal box going up and down a confined space...not a vehicle traveling at 70 MPH. 

 

I really don't want to see self driving cards unless the user is able to take control if the systems fail and need a manual override to try and control the vehicle for safety reasons. 

But the same principle applies,  people used to say it would be absolutely insane to have elevators without "pilots"...

 

Last part,  yes, I understand the sentiment,  but ultimately this is the opposite of what's it supposed to be, if you have a human that can interfere at any time because of their "feelings" that defeats the purpose completely  - you're underestimating the capability of the ai (when done right) , sure there will be mistakes and accidents,  but the point is there will be far less of it than currently. 

 

Sure, you can say the tech isn't advanced enough yet, and you'd be right,  but looking forward it will be, and it won't be long (provided the infrastructure is there and I don't think that will be a huge issue in many regions tbh, the requirements aren't super high)

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Where did he say anything about internet  - thats indeed a bad idea (which is why I can see apple etc going this route obviously, lol gotta be "meta") the way these cars communicate the sensible way is over direct radio signals, mind you that isn't even 100% necessary,  but it does help to know where each car in the vincity is exactly for sure. 

Location is not even the most important data imo. The most important data is what the other cars intend to do, e.g. overtaking.

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Where did he say anything about internet  - thats indeed a bad idea (which is why I can see apple etc going this route obviously, lol gotta be "meta") the way these cars communicate the sensible way is over direct radio signals, mind you that isn't even 100% necessary,  but it does help to know where each car in the vincity is exactly for sure. 

Oh i would absolutely stay away from internet connectivity. The stakes are just too high imo. But there has to be a way to make a car communicate with the direct vicinity without using the interwebs. But seeing as internet connectivity is a feature in many non-self-driving cars nowadays i'd expect we're sadly moving towards more of the same...

[SolarNova]

Computers are only as stupid as the person controlling it.

 

So the question isnt would you trust the computer in the car with ur safety?

its

Do you trust apple and their programmers with your safety ?

 

Thats an easy one, HELL NO !

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Where did he say anything about internet 

He didnt wrote it but manufacturers doing it, why? Because ppl just lazy AF and want to control everything from their phone without moving their fat butt.....

[RejZoR]

Bullshit. Remember how Tesla was promising this space age self driving? And suddenly we don't hear a damn thing about it and they said it'll be out in 2019. Not to mention parts where Teslas were ramming into road splits and barriers... In fact EVERYONE is oddly quiet about self driving cars all of a sudden. It's almost as if everyone found out they are shit and they just want to go quietly about it.

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

He didnt wrote it but manufacturers doing it, why? Because ppl just lazy AF and want to control everything from their phone without moving their fat butt.....

Well I agree, as mentioned... doing this over the internet makes no sense whatsoever. 

[CommanderAlex]

10 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Last part,  yes, I understand the sentiment,  but ultimately this is the opposite of what's it supposed to be, if you have a human that can interfere at any time because of their "feelings" that defeats the purpose completely  - your underestimating the capability of the ai (when done right) , sure there will be mistakes and accidents,  but the point is there will be far less of it than currently. 

 

Sure, you can say the tech isn't advanced enough yet, and you'd be right,  but looking forward it will be, and it won't be long (provided the infrastructure is there and I don't think that will be a huge issue in many regions tbh, the requirements aren't super high)

For sure, the technology is not there yet to have full autonomous self driving vehicles. The one thing with the elevator is it goes up and down guided in the elevator shaft. There is hardly any harm there. A vehicle on the other hand, it can go x,y,z (or i,j,k) and is not bound to a "zone" if you will. AI is only going to be as good as the people that code it, and we're human so there's that aspect (we make mistakes). What happens if the base of the AI has a fundamental flaw in it and learns wrong? There has to be many safety devices and redundancies in self driving vehicles, I believe. 

 

I have a friend going to school for civil engineering and one of the courses is on transportation engineering and in the textbook, it is already talking about self-driving vehicles in the next 10 years. Things will happen quickly. Infrastructure needs to be updated and improved so the systems in these self-driving cars that detects lanes, signs, etc. will detect these objects/features so that they can identify these signs and recognize what they need to do. Perhaps the future might be a hybrid of normal street signs that we see and QR codes for self-driving vehicles or radio frequencies (I don't know, just throwing things out there). Who knows. 

[Mark Kaine]

11 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Location is not even the most important data imo. The most important data is what the other cars intend to do, e.g. overtaking.

That's the thing, to do that you need to know where the car is, there are only like 3 or 4 most likely options where it goes from there,  its not difficult to predict... i mean the funny thing is this works right now, on public roads, with other cars that don't have positioning signals at all... (and no serious incidents)its actually impressing. 

 

Hence having a way to communicate directly will improve things even further tremendously. 

[BuckGup]

We already trust our lives with pilots, bus drivers, and really any ride sharing service. I trust a computer a lot more than a human because a computer can't get distracted or have emotional disturbances that cause accidents. Also sensors are better than eyes

[ZePat]

11 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I think I'll be ok if the car is equipped with Secure Foam(TM) technology:
 

 

 

Yes! Because if I ever get in a bad accident, I can combine the exhileration of finding myself alive and the elation of self-unboxing!

 

But yeah... I also would not feel secure if such a thing were to be.  I mean, just look at how QoL safety improvements have rendered some drivers even worse: Self-park assist - now people can't parallel park to save their lives.  Back-up cameras - now people forget their heads can TURN to ensure blindspots not covered by the camera, ARE covered by their EYES; Blind-side sensors when chaning lanes - now people just don't look over their shoulders... auto-lit dashboards - people forget to turn on their lights altogether at night - because I can see my dashboard in pitchblack night, so everything's ok?

 

I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy some of those QoL improvements when driving my brother's Mercedes, or my dad's GMC Terrain - but I more often than not - avoid them, as not to fall in a false sense of security provided by these gadgets.  Until someone, can 100% ensure and replace ALL cars on the roads, by self-driving, relatively "100%" safe self-driving cars - I'm staying the f away from those.  Not saying my reflexes are 100x better than some of these "gadgets", but my driving experience, my decision making based on said experience - that I'll trust 10000x more than any sensor-filled, pedals and steering-deprived cars.

[poochyena]

Any people driving a car today made in the past 20 years is already trusting a computer with their life. Any people who has ever flown in a plane has trusted a computer with their life. Or ever been to the hospital hooked up to any machines. If you can't handle the idea of trusting a computer with your life, you can't participate in modern society.

We have self driving cars that don't need human intervention right now that have driven millions of miles. This isn't the future, thats the present.

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Not on my life. Wasn't really interested, but most definitely not interested now.

Yeah idk why they wouldn't have the two at all. I mean it would be one thing if it wasn't the center of the disgn and it was only meant for as a backup plan for use in the case of emergencies but it's another to not have them at all. 

[GoodBytes]

56 minutes ago, ZePat said:

Yes! Because if I ever get in a bad accident, I can combine the exhileration of finding myself alive and the elation of self-unboxing!

It's Secure Foam, it's magic, even flips the car if it falls on up side down.

 

56 minutes ago, ZePat said:

But yeah... I also would not feel secure if such a thing were to be.  I mean, just look at how QoL safety improvements have rendered some drivers even worse: Self-park assist - now people can't parallel park to save their lives.  Back-up cameras - now people forget their heads can TURN to ensure blindspots not covered by the camera, ARE covered by their EYES; Blind-side sensors when chaning lanes - now people just don't look over their shoulders... auto-lit dashboards - people forget to turn on their lights altogether at night - because I can see my dashboard in pitchblack night, so everything's ok?

I don't think that is entirely true.

 

While they are always exceptions, some people appear to have poor parking skills because it is actually harder to parallel park. You have more cars on roads, so the person who is parking, trying to be nice, must go fast as cars are behind them and miss park. On addition, distance between cars have narrowed, due to either increased parking spots, or due to a higher number of larger vehicles (including the vehicle of the person parking)

 

As for blind spots, it is known fact that most people, as they age, tend to no longer check their blind spot as they change lanes or go backwards. This is not helped that because we have blind spot cameras, and wide view backup cameras, even turn lanes assist, cars are built with worse visibility in exchange of looks.

Considering that we have the baby boomers generation all getting older, the situation gets worse and worse. Some car manufacturers are taking a step back by improving visibility, and some also adds more security features like blind spot cameras on both left and right side, like some Hyundai's to consider the aging populatoin who longer turn their heads for various reason (pain, lack sense of security, slower reaction time, etc)

 

Also, if you are in a country like in Canada with a high influx of immigration, many are used to drive in their country of origin, which many of them, can be seen as the wild wild west. And while many do efforts in driving properly, because they got used to worse conditions, they tend to feel super safe in Canada, and so don't put their turn signal or check blind spots when they should, forgetting that others on the roads don't have their experience.

 

As for auto night lights, this was always been a problem. People just forgets, especially when conditions changes start changing when driving. Considering that car has ambient light sensor even on the base models for most cars even before early 2000's, putting auto lights control behind a pay wall (higher Trim model required) was and still is silly.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

This is a common truism but... people tend to forget that it's still humans writing the software. Car software in particular isn't known to be especially reliable...

Alluding to the fact that "humans" writing the software is a bigger truism, and misleading.  My point still stands and is very valid.  There will get to a point where cars will be able to drive themselves more safely than humans, and when you hit that point you will have people taking over for the vehicle when they feel that the vehicle isn't doing something right and causing a crash.  Even on the FSD beta (which does have it's many many faults), I've seen a couple instances of someone who was questioning why the car was stopping only to see that there was a pedestrian that they hadn't noticed (or similar cases).

 

Also, the more FSD beta is moving more and more away from scripted behaviors and more towards neural network driven (it's why they have spent literal billions on building a super-computer to do the training) [Which I mean NN's do have their own potential faults, but they also have so much test data]

 

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Car software in particular isn't known to be especially reliable...

The driving technology is being created by the companies that aren't the standard car manufacturers.  *Taking about classical car manufacturers now* Also, it depends what you mean by reliable...the computer systems on vehicles control a whole ton of stuff without crashing and without faults.  They also last well over 10 years (because they use older tech that has been battle tested).  That does mean they are outdated though.  With that said as well, they are vulnerable to hacks...given they don't actually update the system or care as much about security (but things are changing).

 

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Waymo (i think?) has a autonomous driving car , with steering wheel and pedals,  but you aren't really supposed to sit in the drivers seat - because you are not the driver...

Didn't seem to have issues getting approval (for testing on public roads) 0 serious accidents so far! (look it up!)

 

The problem is with these new age hippie companies ala apple google tesla etc ... they do not have the expertise and make life worse for everyone with their "innovations" (that they stole/ copied from someone else)

...uhm, just a question...you do realize that Google created Waymo?  It was spawned from the Google self-driving project, which they started despite a lot of people saying it would never amount to anything, or that it would never be safer.  I mean, they literally started work from this from scratch.  So in no way did they steal or copy someone else.

 

Also, Tesla's FSD/autopilot very much is their own inhouse stuff...they've even had issues of other companies poaching some employees (and taking the source code with them)...Tesla def. isn't stealing or copying [after all, they have already received a ton of criticism from switching away from radar and refusing to do lidar...they are at the moment the industry leaders/innovators in terms of this]

 

7 hours ago, Rauten said:

But I would very much like to have the option to correct course if all of a sudden Siri decides that it wants to go all Kool-Aid on a brick wall.

But what if you fall asleep and move the wheel causing the accident (as someone who has been the passenger in a vehicle where the driver fell asleep, if you hands are on the wheel you tend to drag it to one side when going and then when waking up tend to jerk the steering wheel again).

 

Ultimately it comes down to, is the driving safer than if a human is behind the wheel.  If so, then there should be limits put in place to prevent human from taking control.  Which I think a good solution is to have a controller instead of the steering wheel.

[jagdtigger]

19 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

what if you fall asleep

If someone goes that far then he/she should have their license revoked permanently. If they dont have the brains to make responsible decisions (like pulling over and taking a nap if they feel tired) it is best to remove them before someone gets hurt....
As far as i see it the core problem isnt the fact that we are humans, but the legal system that is designed to allow everyone and their dog to get a license so companies can sell even more cars.

[Heliian]

For me, not in the next 20 years, that's for sure. 

 

Navigating off the road would be a pain if you couldn't take control.

 

You could also get boxed in and harassed pretty easily if the car refuses to force it's way out or run over an object in the road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cool Dude 101]

No thank you, I will drive when I when I feel the need. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

If someone goes that far then he/she should have their license revoked permanently. If they dont have the brains to make responsible decisions (like pulling over and taking a nap if they feel tired) it is best to remove them before someone gets hurt....
As far as i see it the core problem isnt the fact that we are humans, but the legal system that is designed to allow everyone and their dog to get a license so companies can sell even more cars.

If you have an automated system that is driving you, I can guarantee that the rates of falling asleep at the wheel would skyrocket (especially if it's built to just be used in the case of an emergency).  My point being that there reaches a time where self driving cars, it would be safer to eliminate a wheel just because you will get scenarios where people can sleep in the vehicle and accidentally hit the wheel

 

Also, it's pretty easy to fall asleep while driving...even if you think you are fully awake.https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6151.pdf  That shows that the age range of 18-64, 3546/99208, or 3.57% of people admitted to falling asleep within the last 30 days.  That is people who admitted it as well, I'd bet that there are a decent amount that don't admit it either.  For a sense of scale, that's 1 in about every 28 have fallen asleep.

 

People are human after all, and no matter how good a driver is all it takes is having a bad day.  I know even for myself there were times that I probably shouldn't have been driving (just because my mind was somewhere else) and reflecting on it I probably shouldn't have been driving, but at the time I wasn't really thinking about it (because my mind was focused on pressing other things).

[MultiGamerClub]

"Would you trust a computer with your life?"

Tesla: Yes.

Anyone else: No.

 

Never tried a tesla but they look good, too bad the auto drive is banned in norway now

[Quackers101]

29 minutes ago, MultiGamerClub said:

"Would you trust a computer with your life?"

Tesla: Yes.

Anyone else: No.

tesla: yes, and we are going to reduce the price but remove safety features like cross checking important safety measures. if you die, then you should have read the EULA and buyed the more expensive version.

[BabaGanuche]

To get to where I live you have to drive down 4 miles of dirt road. How is would this be handled? I am thinking from just a sensors point of view. Dow do they deal with being covered in mud. In the spring when the the ground is thawing and the snow is melting there is no part of my car that is not covered in mud. There is the windshield wipers for the humans. Now do they have to add the for every optical sensor that vehicle has? If a car has no manual controls it has to be able to handle 100% of cases. Where one with manual controls may only have to do 90% of cases. I can drive my self for the portions that it cannot handle and let it drive itself the other 90%.

 

Quote

The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time

 

I have worked on too many software project and know that this is always true. I see no reason self driving cars would be any different.

 

On another note, I think any self driving car that requires change to the road infrastructure is doomed to fail. We cannot even get the existing roads maintained because all the money the government is pissing away that should be spend on the roads.

 

My expectation would be that will there will be place well self driving is possible, like highways, however I think it is a long way off for it to be able to do 100% of even my daily driving.