Tesla autopilot update

[ChineseChef]

35 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Sadly the testing systems in so many places including here are sorely lacking imo.  There is no testing to prove you can control a slide for example, ridiculous considering you could end up in one pretty damn easily at least 4 months out of the year.  Even the testing of proving you have a good sense of manoeuvring the vehicle in a calm and normal manner, like parking, etc. is not what it should be.  And then there's the testing to prove you can follow rules ... sure they check you stop at stop signs and only turn when it's safe but this testing is pretty much absent compared to what it should be.  If it was adequate, you wouldn't see people on their phones or drunk while driving.

To add to your points, there is also the issue of old people who shouldn't drive anymore.  I live in the south, and during the winter we get all the snowbirds coming down here, showing how poorly they can handle driving.  It is not uncommon to have some old person driving circles in an intersection because they forgot where they were going, or old people driving down the wrong side of the road having no idea what they were doing.  But we all just kind of let it happen, cause society doesn't want to take away their license, since that would take away their mobility.  Which I kind of understand, no driving can mean being totally stranded and dependent on expensive taxi services or unreliable/unwilling people.  In the US we have a real attitude of if you can't do it yourself, than you don't deserve to do it.  So lots of old people kind of get forgotten or just get left to die and stop being a burden on society.

 

AI cars should allow families and local gov'ts to more easily take away driver's licenses from those that genuinely can't handle it any more.  They would be able to maintain their mobility, and it would even allow people who can't drive now to be able to get around, such as blind folks and other disabled.  While there are services for this now, they are usually quite expensive, and normalizing AI driving would drastically reduce the cost of such services.

[vorticalbox]

Elon Musk is going to ruin forza 12  

[Brooksie359]

On 6/16/2017 at 6:02 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah, that sounds about right.  And you can bet that once it's ready, and government see the incredible safety improvements that they'll make it law just like seatbelts, certain bumper designs, or any of the other fancy things that've happened before

Yeah not gonna happen. You try and tell someone they can't drive there own car people are going to be mad. I mean if safety was a concern of the government more than people's rights then assault rifles would be illegal but you don't see that because for the very same reason. I mean you really think all the car enthusiasts who collect sport cars and like to drive are just going to roll over on something like this? I highly doubt it.

[vanished]

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah not gonna happen. You try and tell someone they can't drive there own car people are going to be mad. I mean if safety was a concern of the government more than people's rights then assault rifles would be illegal but you don't see that because for the very same reason. I mean you really think all the car enthusiasts who collect sport cars and like to drive are just going to roll over on something like this? I highly doubt it.

That's an interesting point, and you're right about the approach they've taken with other things, at least in the US.  Ultimately it does come down to safety, and the issue of letting people do what they want vs forcing them to do or use something that is available and proven to improve safety.  On the one hand you're right about the guns thing (again at least in the US).  As a counter example though I would point again to previous car-related laws, such as how it's illegal to drive with too high a blood alcohol content, or illegal to drive without wearing a seatbelt, etc.  In those cases it was decided that the impact to safety was worth restricting peoples' rights.

 

I guess time will tell what happens with these.  As I said, I don't expect it to hit us all at once.  It will come in small pieces. Features like auto emergency breaking and radar guided cruise have already moved from the high-end luxury cars to addons available for "regular" vehicles.  The next step is for them to become standard (included) on all models, and then after that you'll see it written into law cars must have them.  Over time, there will just be more and more things like this until one day you realize you can just sit back, close your eyes, and floor the gas, and let the computer override you until you've arrived safely at your destination.  That's the day people will ask themselves why we even still bother with steering wheels and pedals.

[ARikozuM]

36 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

 I mean if safety was a concern of the government more than people's rights then assault rifles would be illegal but you don't see that because for the very same reason.

Don't know about Canada, but assault rifles (fully automatic) are illegal here in the US unless they are older than a certain date. 

 

Edit: Unless you meant guns, in general.

 

@Ryan_Vickers I think what will happen is the AI will hurt someone with the driver not being at fault, but the injured party will still pursue litigation leading to the question of who's responsible for the event.

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Don't know about Canada, but assault rifles (fully automatic) are illegal here in the US unless they are older than a certain date. 

 

Edit: Unless you meant guns, in general.

 

@Ryan_Vickers I think what will happen is the AI will hurt someone with the driver not being at fault, but the injured party will still pursue litigation leading to the question of who's responsible for the event.

I would very much like to see the lawyer who can convince even a single person that there's any responsibility whatsoever on the "driver's" shoulders when they are in fact not actually driving and indeed functioning the same as a passenger would in a normal vehicle.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I would very much like to see the lawyer who can convince even a single person that there's any responsibility whatsoever on the "driver's" shoulders when they are in fact not actually driving and indeed functioning the same as a passenger would in a normal vehicle.

I don't think you've seen many lawyers. They may have hearts, but their cold and run on money. 

 

On topic: It isn't too surprising though. People will always want someone to blame when something goes awry. Look at our community, for instance. Do the individual companies have responsibility when a GPU doesn't play nicely? Is the driver, who may have a say in the situation's handling (hopefully they keep manual controls for when someone bugs out or the computer can't assess the risk beyond a reasonable doubt), or the car manufacturer at fault since they built the system? Or will the system be wholly independent with skins (like Android or iOS) through a third-party? The AI will likely follow all given parameters, but humans? You tell them to use crosswalks since they're "safer", but they won't care, because less effort and time wasted is more important than the parameters they're given.

 

Same thing will likely happen here. If you have an AI-driven vehicle and you live in San Francisco, you'll likely be on the side of Ai, but in NYC? We'll be lucky if anything can drive after a riot. 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

I don't think you've seen many lawyers. They may have hearts, but their cold and run on money. 

 

On topic: It isn't too surprising though. People will always want someone to blame when something goes awry. Look at our community, for instance. Do the individual companies have responsibility when a GPU doesn't play nicely? Is the driver, who may have a say in the situation's handling (hopefully they keep manual controls for when someone bugs out or the computer can't assess the risk beyond a reasonable doubt), or the car manufacturer at fault since they built the system? Or will the system be wholly independent with skins (like Android or iOS) through a third-party? The AI will likely follow all given parameters, but humans? You tell them to use crosswalks since they're "safer", but they won't care, because less effort and time wasted is more important than the parameters they're given.

 

Same thing will likely happen here. If you have an AI-driven vehicle and you live in San Francisco, you'll likely be on the side of Ai, but in NYC? We'll be lucky if anything can drive after a riot. 

It just defies all logic though.  If people can be blamed for the actions taken by an entirely separate entity over which they had no control, the precedent that sets is simply unfathomable.  Your computer stops working?  Sue your neighbour.  Someone murders someone?  Just pull some random guy off the street, it was basically his fault.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It just defies all logic though.  If people can be blamed for the actions taken by an entirely separate entity over which they had no control, the precedent that sets is simply unfathomable.  Your computer stops working?  Sue your neighbour.  Someone murders someone?  Just pull some random guy off the street, it was basically his fault.

Going off-topic, but as a vet I can take the life of an animal. Why would I do that? The animal could be in pain and deserves his peace. The animal could be a danger to those around itself. Why can't MD's help their patients take their lives and have to resort to elusive practices? It's a double-standard here that we deserve to be in pain when there may be no hope for recovery or, if there is, damage will be too far-reaching. 

Spoiler

I refuse euthanasia to all customers unless I've exhausted all possible treatments and have not performed any thus far. FTR

 

On topic: People want to ban guns for killing people simply because one or two stories hit the news. Imagine if it involves a car (manual). People get furious at the driver. If it were an AI-driven, they'd still be mad at the driver and the company since you can't sue a machine (unless you want some engine oil or fuel). I think what needs to happen is a trial that demonstrates the AI's ability to perform well in a variety of locations, but in public. Not on a training course, not solely on the highway, but in a mixture of environments with a human at the helm ready to help in the decision-making process.

Examples

Driver driving too crazy (mind you, I mean when others are going 60 and this schmuck is hitting 100), have the AI disable manual control, pull the car over, and stall for a few seconds. AI can ask "where do you want to go?" and the driver can input the info allowing the AI to drive there. 

Manually driving but cars are stopping due to an accident, but driver doesn't notice, AI applies brakes and keeps the car steady. 

If the car shows what the AI sees and the driver notices that it doesn't notice an object or pothole in the road (assume this is possible like the white truck and Tesla), the driver can take control and slow the vehicle or pull into another lane. 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

[...]If it were an AI-driven, they'd still be mad at the driver and the company since you can't sue a machine [...]

But you can sue the company.  Not that that should even be necessary though, I'm sure we'll get the standard procedures for how to handle things before we get the a point where it's actually happening.

[Paparachipupopep]

Self driving cars alone won't make people want to give up car ownership and driving themselves. Self driving taxis will. It's possible we'll get to a point where self driving taxis are so cheap, people won't want to own cars, unless they're enthusiasts or have some sort of specialized needs. There's at least one pretty smart guy who thinks this will happen by 2030.

[Jito463]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah not gonna happen. You try and tell someone they can't drive there own car people are going to be mad. I mean if safety was a concern of the government more than people's rights then assault rifles would be illegal but you don't see that because for the very same reason. I mean you really think all the car enthusiasts who collect sport cars and like to drive are just going to roll over on something like this? I highly doubt it.

In the US at least, cars and guns are treated very differently.  Driving is still legally considered a privilege, no matter how much it may be ingrained in our culture.  Guns, on the other hand, are an absolute right as explained in the Bill of Rights; even though our government defies it by creating rules (like the assault rifle ban @ARikozuM mentioned), despite the words "shall not be infringed" being an explicit part of that amendment.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

In the US at least, cars and guns are treated very differently.  Driving is still legally considered a privilege, no matter how much it may be ingrained in our culture.  Guns, on the other hand, are an absolute right as explained in the Bill of Rights; even though our government defies it by creating rules (like the assault rifle ban @ARikozuM mentioned), despite the words "shall not be infringed" being an explicit part of that amendment.

The assault rifle ban wasn't renewed so they are legal. Obviously not fully automatic versions but your AR 15s and such that have been used many times in mass shootings. Although the right to bear arms is in fact a right and not a privilege there are still restrictions like on automatic guns. So if the government cared about safety they would make semiautomatic assault rifles with large clips illegal. The main reason why they don't make it illegal is because of the NRA which is backed by the large gun manufacturers so it's really about money. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was created backed by car manufacturers who make alot of money on sports cars. 

[Jito463]

19 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The assault rifle ban wasn't renewed so they are legal. Obviously not fully automatic versions but your AR 15s and such that have been used many times in mass shootings. Although the right to bear arms is in fact a right and not a privilege there are still restrictions like on automatic guns. So if the government cared about safety they would make semiautomatic assault rifles with large clips illegal. The main reason why they don't make it illegal is because of the NRA which is backed by the large gun manufacturers so it's really about money. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was created backed by car manufacturers who make alot of money on sports cars. 

The thing is, automatic rifles (which is what I meant by "assault rifles") should not be illegal at all.  And there is literally no reason to ban large magazines (not clips).  Legitimate gun owners are not going to be going on a shooting spree, and criminals who will, don't care about the laws to begin with.  The only ones who are injured by those laws, are - by definition - the law abiding citizens.

 

It's no different than DRM on games.  DRM only affects those who legitimately purchase their games.  The pirates (criminals in this comparison) don't care about DRM and are not affected by it.  There is not one legitimate reason for any gun laws to exist in the US. given our second Amendment, save perhaps for those applying to criminals who have abused their right.

 

In any event, this isn't the Smoking Barrels thread, and I didn't mean to turn it into a gun rights debate.  I simply intended to point out how the law interprets the difference between cars and guns, and got carried away in my argument.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

The thing is, automatic rifles (which is what I meant by "assault rifles") should not be illegal at all.  And there is literally no reason to ban large magazines (not clips).  Legitimate gun owners are not going to be going on a shooting spree, and criminals who will don't care about the laws to begin with.  The only ones who are injured by those laws, are - by definition - the law abiding citizens.

 

It's no different than DRM on games.  DRM only affects those who legitimately purchase their games.  The pirates (criminals in this comparison) don't care about DRM and are not affected by it.  There is not one legitimate reason for any gun laws to exist in the US. given our second Amendment, save perhaps for those applying to criminals who have abused their right.

 

In any event, this isn't the Smoking Barrels thread, and I didn't mean to turn it into a gun rights debate.  I simply intended to point out how the law interprets the difference between cars and guns, and got carried away in my argument.

I mean after the Sandy hook shooting the support for an assault rifle ban wasn't like 80% and it didn't happen mostly because of the NRA and the money they have in Congress to influence them. Now I don't see why the auto industry wouldn't do the same with all the money in the sports cats and other cars marketed to car enthusiasts. The implications of making self driving cars mandatory are larger than everyone is simplifying it to. It's not the same as making seatbelts mandatory or other laws related to cars. I'm not trying to argue for gun control I'm just saying they are more similar than people think. Both are big industries with alot to lose if a ban were to go through.

[Jito463]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

I mean after the Sandy hook shooting the support for an assault rifle ban wasn't like 80%

No it wasn't.  Don't believe the lame-stream media.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean after the Sandy hook shooting the support for an assault rifle ban wasn't like 80%

Addendum:

 

What was used in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't even an assault rifle, it was a pistol.  While an AR-15 (which is NOT an assault rifle) was found in the shooter's trunk, it was never used.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Addendum:

 

What was used in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't even an assault rifle, it was a pistol.  While an AR-15 (which is NOT an assault rifle) was found in the shooter's trunk, it was never used.

An AR 15 is a semiautomatic assault rifle no matter how you look at it. The way I'm defining assault rifle is how it was defined by the assault rifle ban that was put in place by Bill Clinton. Anyways let's not get side tracked and stick to my point. The NRA is a big reason why another assault rifle ban doesn't happen like it did in 1994. I believe a similar thing would happen for the auto industry with all the money in the car enthusiasts market.

[ChineseChef]

About the sudden gun debate:  The majority of people asking for more gun control don't understand the current laws or even know much about real guns, which is always frustrating.  And a surprising amount of people for gun rights, are immune to "what about the mass shootings" because they understand that freedom comes with certain costs.  And gun enthusiasts understand that in life shit happens, and when shit happens with guns people die.  And a few deaths which are statistically insignificant are worth the cost of freedom to most gun owners.  Everyone wants to go after the scary "assault" weapons, but they are used less than 10% of the time in all gun deaths, and lots of gun control folks want to ignore that more than half of gun deaths are suicide, and 3/4 of the murders with guns are crime vs crime (gang on gang) and they use hand guns.

But that is a debate for a different time and place.

 

Back to AI cars:

I think a lot of you people saying safety will motivate legislation are ignoring the money and the voter bases.  No one is going to vote for a person or law that is going to remove their own ability to drive their own car.  If you still have a manual drive car, you will never vote to ban manual drive cars unless you are getting a free AI car.  Plus SO SO SO many of you people arguing about "ban manual drive" "just use future uber" are ignoring the large amount of people that don't live in big cities.  Or you are from not the US, and you have good public transportation.  In like 99% of the US, public transport is horrid or non-existent.  And a lot of people live too far away for an AI-taxi service to be practical in any way.  We can't just tell all the rural folks that they aren't allowed to drive their cars anymore, and they won't need to buy a new one when that won't be a real option for them.  People who don't live in high population areas will need to own their own cars if they want any real mobility, whether AI or manual.

[ChineseChef]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

An AR 15 is a semiautomatic assault rifle no matter how you look at it. The way I'm defining assault rifle is how it was defined by the assault rifle ban that was put in place by Bill Clinton. Anyways let's not get side tracked and stick to my point. The NRA is a big reason why another assault rifle ban doesn't happen like it did in 1994. I believe a similar thing would happen for the auto industry with all the money in the car enthusiasts market.

An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, meaning it can fire single fire, or multi-fire (burst or full auto).  These are already highly regulated, and ultra expensive (around 20k for a full auto M16).  And they can only be owned by civilians if the weapon was produced before 1986. 

An assault weapon is a term the media made up to classify any "scary" looking rifle they didn't want the plebs to have.  All an assault weapon is, is a regular hunting rifle, but with tacti-cool toys on it.  There is functionally no difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon.  It is 100% about appearance.  Also, the assault weapon ban didn't actually prevent assault weapons from being bought or sold, it only outlawed certain appearances, it prevented nothing functionally within guns.  It was 100% cosmetic. 

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, ChineseChef said:

An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, meaning it can fire single fire, or multi-fire (burst or full auto).  These are already highly regulated, and ultra expensive (around 20k for a full auto M16).  And they can only be owned by civilians if the weapon was produced before 1986. 

An assault weapon is a term the media made up to classify any "scary" looking rifle they didn't want the plebs to have.  All an assault weapon is, is a regular hunting rifle, but with tacti-cool toys on it.  There is functionally no difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon.  It is 100% about appearance.  Also, the assault weapon ban didn't actually prevent assault weapons from being bought or sold, it only outlawed certain appearances, it prevented nothing functionally within guns.  It was 100% cosmetic. 

Again I'm not going to argue about the definition of an assualt rifle or anything related to that. My argument was that they won't ban people from driving there own cars.

[ChineseChef]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Again I'm not going to argue about the definition of an assualt rifle or anything related to that. My argument was that they won't ban people from driving there own cars.

Hold the fuck on, am I agreeing with you, or disagreeing with you?? lol  I think I may have confused myself about your intentions. 

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, ChineseChef said:

Hold the fuck on, am I agreeing with you, or disagreeing with you?? lol  I think I may have confused myself about your intentions. 

I don't like the idea of banning people from driving their own cars and was using the gun argument as to why I don't think they will even be able to. I wasn't trying to argue one way or the other for gun control I was just saying that it seems like there would be enough people against it just like gun control. I think maybe now I should have just let the gun control reference out of it and just talk about how both the auto industry and the car enthusiasts would be against it.

[ChineseChef]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I don't like the idea of banning people from driving their own cars and was using the gun argument as to why I don't think they will even be able to. I wasn't trying to argue one way or the other for gun control I was just saying that it seems like there would be enough people against it just like gun control. I think maybe now I should have just let the gun control reference out of it and just talk about how both the auto industry and the car enthusiasts would be against it.

Ok, well, now I feel like an ass for my response.  I agree with your assessment.