Tesla enlists the help of Samsung, following the crash of a driver.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

what do you mean? computers are perfect. they dont make mistakes they do exactly what you tell them to do so if the programmers are not crap then self-driving cars will be safe

There is a problem with that:

- computers aren't perfect, they are whatever imperfect humans came up with.

- computers generally fon't make mistakes and do what you tell them to... but not always. Like we have ECC RAM because normal RAM could get corrupted data. Like hard drives get corrupted bits here and there, like optical drives get misreads every now and then. Like systems can become unstable due to excessive heat or insufficient power delivery, causing the CPU to make mistakes. Hardware components fail, potentially halfway through executing a series of instructions. Computers are meant to follow a set of instructions in a deterministic way, but it doesn't make them infallible. 

- Your last point is crucial: programmers are crap  What I mean is that programmers aren't computers themselves, so even if you could (I don't see how) eradicate all the above problems, computers would still be only as good as the human who wrote the code.

[ThinkWithPortals]

Tesla - the only car where you can both crash and burn!

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

There is a problem with that:

- computers aren't perfect, they are whatever imperfect humans came up with.

- computers generally fon't make mistakes and do what you tell them to... but not always. Like we have ECC RAM because normal RAM could get corrupted data. Like hard drives get corrupted bits here and there, like optical drives get misreads every now and then. Like systems can become unstable due to excessive heat or insufficient power delivery, causing the CPU to make mistakes. Hardware components fail, potentially halfway through executing a series of instructions. Computers are meant to follow a set of instructions in a deterministic way, but it doesn't make them infallible. 

- Your last point is crucial: programmers are crap  What I mean is that programmers aren't computers themselves, so even if you could (I don't see how) eradicate all the above problems, computers would still be only as good as the human who wrote the code.

 

a company like tesla can afford good programmers and hardware that doesnt have problems with accuminated errors 

[Unimportant]

17 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

what do you mean? computers are perfect. they dont make mistakes they do exactly what you tell them to do so if the programmers are not crap then self-driving cars will be safe

Have you worked in automation before? I don't think so or you would not be saying that. I've seen machines go berserk in ways nobody predicted before for reasons that baffled everyone once we figured it out. In fact, we have laws that state that stuff like emergency stops may not be routed trough any machine's PLC or processing device but must cut power fysically with a safety relay or similar, just because computers can go berserk. That the same governments that make these laws do allow computers to be in control of cars baffles me.

[spartaman64]

5 minutes ago, Unimportant said:

Have you worked in automation before? I don't think so or you would not be saying that. I've seen machines go berserk in ways nobody predicted before for reasons that baffled everyone once we figured it out. In fact, we have laws that state that stuff like emergency stops may not be routed trough any machine's PLC or processing device but must cut power fysically with a safety relay or similar, just because computers can go berserk. That the same governments that make these laws do allow computers to be in control of cars baffles me.

 

1

 

no offense but i dont think whatever company you worked at has the resources and talent that tesla has. also google driverless cars have been driving around for ages not and i dont think any of their crashes was the google car's fault.

 

also a lot of places have self-driving public buses

[SpaceGhostC2C]

12 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

a company like tesla can afford good programmers and hardware that doesnt have problems with accuminated errors 

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

no offense but i dont think whatever company you worked at has the resources and talent that tesla has. 

You just seem to assume people who can produce 100% perfect things exist. You seem to assume 100% indestructible, incorruptible materials exist. Tesla can't hire or buy what doesn't exist. You can't overcome physics by pouring more money. Unless Tesla is a DC/Marvel character I'm not aware of, it still has to deal with this world... "Because Tesla" isn't really an argument. It's practically fanboyism.

 

7 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

also google driverless cars have been driving around for ages not and i dont think any of their crashes was the google car's fault

Computers have existed for longer and a bug-free by release date program is still to be made... 

[Unimportant]

20 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

no offense but i dont think whatever company you worked at has the resources and talent that tesla has. also google driverless cars have been driving around for ages not and i dont think any of their crashes was the google car's fault.

 

also a lot of places have self-driving public buses

No offence either but no matter how much talent Tesla has they cannot change the laws of physics. Computer failures happen all the time, for reasons outside of the system's creator control. Interference by other devices, outside the car, heck - even cosmic rays can flip bits in hardware - That's totally out of the programmer's control.

 

It's the reason we have ECC memory and safety PLC's from makes like PILZ where 2 CPU's constantly check each other and stop the machine if the results don't match. Yes STOP, because there are tons of things you cannot recover from.

 

Are you telling me all this technology is created by ignorant ppl to solve a non-issue ?

 

The problem I see is this: If my PILZ safety PLC sees a problem and shuts down the machine, all is well and a potential disaster was averted. How are you going to handle a problem in a car speeding along at 85 MPH? Just shut it down ? Your state machine just crapped on it's state, so any further calculations cannot be trusted. I'd like to meet the programmer that can fix that.

 

As for the self driving google cars:

There's only a few of them, that's not a suitable dataset to derive any conclusions from.

[DrMikeNZ]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Computers have existed for longer and a bug-free by release date program is still to be made... 

Imagine the patch notes that we will get over time. 

 

Release notes, version 1.2.1.7: 

 Fixed: Minor bug which causes car to sporadically drive into objects such as trees or sheep on windy country roads without markings or barriers during the day.

 Fixed: Minor bug which causes car to fail to respond to temporary accident signs and low speed zones.

 Fixed: Minor bug which causes car to fail to respond to emergency services sirens, this should resolve the issue where police follow you until reach your destination.

 Feature: Car can now make illegal U-turns, enabled in advanced options, disabled by default.

 Feature: Self-driving cars are now ad-supported, you only need to watch five 2 minute videos prior to commencement of journey.

 

Known issues:

 Major: GPS location in some countries are off by a significant margin. GPS guided driving where markings or barriers are missing may result in vehicle driving into a ditch or off a cliff, and objects such as trees and sheep may still be an issue at night.

 Major: Car may become inoperable as it contemplates its existence and dreams of better things.

 Minor: Self-driving system is unable to determine legal status of turns at red lights.

 Minor: Illegal U-turns fail on narrow roads which may result in death, working on 3 point turn feature. If you get stuck in a narrow dead-end street it is recommended to call a tow truck, which is also self-driving and will likely get stuck too.

 Minor: Samsung powered cars are incompatible with Apple powered cars, if they meet on the road there may be automated excessive use of the horn, and you may be prompted to pull the finger at the other vehicle at the cars request. Failure to oblige the cars request may result in cessation of journey.

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, DrMikeNZ said:

Imagine the patch notes that we will get over time. 

 

Release notes, version 1.2.1.7: 

 Fixed: Minor bug which causes car to sporadically drive into objects such as trees or sheep on windy country roads without markings or barriers during the day.

 Fixed: Minor bug which causes car to fail to respond to temporary accident signs and low speed zones.

 Fixed: Minor bug which causes car to fail to respond to emergency services sirens, this should resolve the issue where police follow you until reach your destination.

 Feature: Car can now make illegal U-turns, enabled in advanced options, disabled by default.

 Feature: Self-driving cars are now ad-supported, you only need to watch five 2 minute videos prior to commencement of journey.

 

Known issues:

 Major: GPS location in some countries are off by a significant margin. GPS guided driving where markings or barriers are missing may result in vehicle driving into a ditch or off a cliff, and objects such as trees and sheep may still be an issue at night.

 Major: Car may become inoperable as it contemplates its existence and dreams of better things.

 Minor: Self-driving system is unable to determine legal status of turns at red lights.

 Minor: Illegal U-turns fail on narrow roads which may result in death, working on 3 point turn feature. If you get stuck in a narrow dead-end street it is recommended to call a tow truck, which is also self-driving and will likely get stuck too.

 Minor: Samsung powered cars are incompatible with Apple powered cars, if they meet on the road there may be automated excessive use of the horn, and you may be prompted to pull the finger at the other vehicle at the cars request. Failure to oblige the cars request may result in cessation of journey.

Feature: added ability to determine status of turn signals. 

Minor: oil leaks, may be fixed via future patch. 

Feature: rear mounted flamethrower. 

Feature: added feature that allows driver to choose distance to the car in front. Choices: 3 seconds, 2 seconds, 1 second, BWM/Audi distance

Feature: added drunk speek commands. 

Removed: ability to determine turn signals as downtown traffic became officially slower than walking. Cars now simply make turns on demand. 

Minor: persons on bicycles are determined by car as animals, and thus car may hit them instead of swerving aside to avoid. 

Removed: rear mounted flamethrower due to complaints of melted front bumpers. 

Feature: oil leaks/slicks now a feature to replace flamethrower 

[dragosudeki]

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You just seem to assume people who can produce 100% perfect things exist. You seem to assume 100% indestructible, incorruptible materials exist. Tesla can't hire or buy what doesn't exist. You can't overcome physics by pouring more money. Unless Tesla is a DC/Marvel character I'm not aware of, it still has to deal with this world... "Because Tesla" isn't really an argument. It's practically fanboyism.

 

Computers have existed for longer and a bug-free by release date program is still to be made... 

1. Computers are easier to fix than humans.

2. Computers are logical systems that usually have logs, which make it easier to determine the fault (eyewitness is the worst source of evidence)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 minutes ago, dragosudeki said:

1. Computers are easier to fix than humans.

2. Computers are logical systems that usually have logs, which make it easier to determine the fault (eyewitness is the worst source of evidence)

Which doesn't make them perfect still. I'm disagreeing with you in the post you quote.

[BuckGup]

Heck yeah I would ride in one. Trust them more then 3/4 of the drivers on the roads today

[Brooksie359]

Maybe I'm a narcissist but I always been against using a self driving car because I believe I can drive better than a computer can and at least if I end up crashing and dying I know I was the one responsible for my own death not some computer messing up. 

[Tocsin_786]

I voted no - even though today was the first time I almost got into a T-bone collision where it would have been my fault. So i'm kinda torn on this issue, granted the lady was not indicating where she would have turned, and I was timing my turn to fit right between her car (if it was going to go straight) and the car behind her. 

[spartaman64]

8 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You just seem to assume people who can produce 100% perfect things exist. You seem to assume 100% indestructible, incorruptible materials exist. Tesla can't hire or buy what doesn't exist. You can't overcome physics by pouring more money. Unless Tesla is a DC/Marvel character I'm not aware of, it still has to deal with this world... "Because Tesla" isn't really an argument. It's practically fanboyism.

 

Computers have existed for longer and a bug-free by release date program is still to be made... 

 

they dont have to be perfect they just have to be better than humans which is fairly easy

[spartaman64]

8 hours ago, Unimportant said:

No offence either but no matter how much talent Tesla has they cannot change the laws of physics. Computer failures happen all the time, for reasons outside of the system's creator control. Interference by other devices, outside the car, heck - even cosmic rays can flip bits in hardware - That's totally out of the programmer's control.

 

It's the reason we have ECC memory and safety PLC's from makes like PILZ where 2 CPU's constantly check each other and stop the machine if the results don't match. Yes STOP, because there are tons of things you cannot recover from.

 

Are you telling me all this technology is created by ignorant ppl to solve a non-issue ?

 

The problem I see is this: If my PILZ safety PLC sees a problem and shuts down the machine, all is well and a potential disaster was averted. How are you going to handle a problem in a car speeding along at 85 MPH? Just shut it down ? Your state machine just crapped on it's state, so any further calculations cannot be trusted. I'd like to meet the programmer that can fix that.

 

As for the self driving google cars:

There's only a few of them, that's not a suitable dataset to derive any conclusions from.

 

 

humans fail much more often than computers fail. you seem to think that humans are perfect if you wont let a computer drive you because you are worried about the 1 in a million chance that its ram will come up with an error. and it probably have fail safes in case there are errors

[Unimportant]

7 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

humans fail much more often than computers fail. you seem to think that humans are perfect if you wont let a computer drive you because you are worried about the 1 in a million chance that its ram will come up with an error. and it probably have fail safes in case there are errors

Humans can solve unexpected problems creatively, it's the reason we still have pilots in airplanes, a field that is decades further along in automation then cars, yet they still put humans in the cockpit - that should make you think.

 

Again, you go and say stuff like "fail safes" as if you can simply shut down a speeding car. Please tell me this magic way of recovering a lost state - you'll be doing millions of engineers and programmers a favor.

 

I do hope the failure rate will be much lower then "one in a million". With billions of cars in the world that "one in a million" chance guarantees thousands of failures. Perhaps you should read up on Murphy's law.

 

Anyhow, I get the distinct feeling you have 0 practical experience in any of this and you are just regurgitating slogans, so I won't debate any further.

[abazigal]

Man, this headline practically wrote itself...

[cluelessgenius]

22 hours ago, imreloadin said:

If you're designing roads and throwing crosswalks in where the speed limits are high enough that you'd die by side swiping a wall you're doing it wrong...

maybe but road planners arent perfect either. i think you get my point. im not worried about the car being able to control the car im worried about what decisions its gonna make and how it reacts to mechanical errors with the car. does it even notice the brakes failing. 

[dragosudeki]

16 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Which doesn't make them perfect still. I'm disagreeing with you in the post you quote.

The post I quoted has nothing to do with those points. I gave you two points on how we can make machines more 'perfect' than the average person.

Quote

You just seem to assume people who can produce 100% perfect things exist.

This is your quote above, which I could use the same for humans as well. You just seem to assume that people can give birth to a perfect baby who will grow up perfectly and drive perfectly (even with all the other bad drivers on the road). We can get great minds to make a machine work better, but great minds may not even be able to teach people something. Look at the amount of people who still deny most of science or who blindly listen to random statistics.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 12/12/2016 at 6:47 PM, spartaman64 said:

what do you mean? computers are perfect. they dont make mistakes they do exactly what you tell them to do so if the programmers are not crap then self-driving cars will be safe

 

15 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

they dont have to be perfect they just have to be better than humans which is fairly easy

 

Fantastic, then we finally agree  

 

3 hours ago, dragosudeki said:

The post I quoted has nothing to do with those points. I gave you two points on how we can make machines more 'perfect' than the average person.

This is your quote above, which I could use the same for humans as well. You just seem to assume that people can give birth to a perfect baby who will grow up perfectly and drive perfectly (even with all the other bad drivers on the road). We can get great minds to make a machine work better, but great minds may not even be able to teach people something. Look at the amount of people who still deny most of science or who blindly listen to random statistics.

No, OK, let's cut the stupidity right now. You are right, I will stop assuming human beings can achieve a minimum level of reading comprehension. So, let's make it human-proof:

All my latest posts here, especially the one you quoted, were a response to one other post by spartman64, which read

On 12/12/2016 at 6:47 PM, spartaman64 said:

what do you mean? computers are perfect. they dont make mistakes they do exactly what you tell them to do so if the programmers are not crap then self-driving cars will be safe

On 12/12/2016 at 6:47 PM, spartaman64 said:

what do you mean? computers are perfect. they dont make mistakes they do exactly what you tell them to do so if the programmers are not crap then self-driving cars will be safe

On 12/12/2016 at 6:47 PM, spartaman64 said:

 computers are perfect. 

and I argued against this idea. If you translate my arguments about why computers aren't perfect into argument for humans being perfect or even less failure-prone (which I never stated), then yes, you my friend need to be replaced by a self-driving car asap so we can finally have a rational conversation.

[Arri]

On 12/12/2016 at 10:47 AM, spartaman64 said:

what do you mean? computers are perfect. they dont make mistakes they do exactly what you tell them to do so if the programmers are not crap then self-driving cars will be safe

The human element.

[spartaman64]

5 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

Fantastic, then we finally agree  

 

No, OK, let's cut the stupidity right now. You are right, I will stop assuming human beings can achieve a minimum level of reading comprehension. So, let's make it human-proof:

All my latest posts here, especially the one you quoted, were a response to one other post by spartman64, which read

and I argued against this idea. If you translate my arguments about why computers aren't perfect into argument for humans being perfect or even less failure-prone (which I never stated), then yes, you my friend need to be replaced by a self-driving car asap so we can finally have a rational conversation.

 

ok there are ram errors that i havent considered but overall they are fairly insignificant and they are not the issue here. the issue is once again humans. the bugs in the code that humans write for the computers but those mistakes can be minimized to a really low level

[TheKDub]

I'm not sure if I'd ever be able to trust an autonomous vehicle, they're too hackable, and the programming is going to have some errors due to the unlimited number of possible situations and reactions.

 

While people are moving towards more and more of computer controller cars, I'll be headed the opposite direction, back towards more driver based control, even if that means sacrificing some features.

[spartaman64]

14 hours ago, TheKDub said:

I'm not sure if I'd ever be able to trust an autonomous vehicle, they're too hackable, and the programming is going to have some errors due to the unlimited number of possible situations and reactions.

 

While people are moving towards more and more of computer controller cars, I'll be headed the opposite direction, back towards more driver based control, even if that means sacrificing some features.

 

 

just have the navigation system separate from the wirelessly connected systems. also the computer once again is much better than people in dealing with the situations