Why is everyone interested in self driving cars? The only buyers will be amerifat suburban commuters since enterprises don't want the added insurance cost of eliminating drivers (same has proven true for railroads, sealines, airlines, etc). It's the biggest tech meme.
I think the biggest tech meme is demanding tech always stay the same. Honestly, /g/ is the biggest tech meme. There really is no forethought or excitement for the future, only whining that it's different than a Thinkpad.
Old people. The average age of every first world country (and most developing countries, for that matter) is increasing, and enforcing stricter driver licensing laws on them is politically unviable, since old people actually go out and vote. Self driving cars will let Grandma goto church & the grocery store with out being a danger to everyone else.
>added insurance cost of eliminating drivers
Insurance companies like customers that don't have accidents. Self-driving cars don't have accidents.
See where I'm going with this ?
We have it in some areas, but we have too many negroes & spics in our cities to make it a viable option for civilized people. You euros will figure this out as you import more muslims.
A machine in this era will never be better since they can't adapt to unknown conditions unless its been programmed in. And even then, whats programmed in will suck ass, like the voice command bullshit we have.
Because owning my own cab and cab driver would be sweet as fuck
Also less drunk driving is always a good thing
And I wouldn't almost get creamed on my bicycle like I did last week when some lady blew through a one-way intersection going the wrong way while side traffic had the green
just because you are too moronic to understand it doesn't mean that it's not being used RIGHT NOW in driverless cars
There actually isn't that much information hardcoded into the driverless cars, it's all MLA from enormous amounts of data collected from human drivers
Cripples, retards and lazy fucks.
I understand that some people may not be able to drive properly and are better off using a self driving car for their everyday transportation.
But think about the many able-bodied douches and bitches that will clutter streets and highways just to get to the McDonald's drive-thru or buy some irrelevant item at the grocery store.
The technology is really cool, but be prepared to cringe when they become commonplace and people start to use it in stupid ways, like people usually do with all technology ever.
>just because you are too moronic to understand it doesn't mean that it's not being used RIGHT NOW in driverless cars
its a buzzword. Remember that video from last month with GeoHot where he made the driverless car and just analyzed some frames to "learn" from the cars around it? Yeah. Thats all that deep learning boils down to, analyzing some snapshots and then comparing them to past snapshots. But, that doesnt "sound" the same for "investors"
Come on /g/...you're not this retarded, are you?
>Better than regular public transport
>Basically a moving living room
>It's yours and you can drink/smoke/chill while getting places
>Can come pick/drop me and find parking on it's own
>Should be relatively cheap as google almost never charges for software
I literally have wet dreams about having one.
if you had less cars and less social segregation, more people would use public transport and you'd probably have a much better system
cars have many other kinds of issues, too... and so does software
What does this mean? Nvidia has a huge interest in making as much money as they can, off of this one buzzword and putting some glorified gpu in a car. Literally billions are at stake for them to push their agenda and buzzwords
Yeah, but, you know, without having to explain all the things it "just is", we have a term for it.
It isn't an obfuscating buzzword, it's a name for something.
So you don't have to say "a four-legged animal that's supposedly a man's best friend", and say dog.
We don't need to talk like a gameshow.
My girlfriend is legally blind, meaning that if something happened while I was at work, she couldn't get to the hospital without paying a gorillian dollars for an ambulance. If something happened to the dog, she would have to find a pet taxi that wouldn't take 45 minutes to get here.
Self driving cars would allow everyone to get where they need to be quickly, safely, privately, and cheaply.
Hating self driving cars is like manual transmission fanboyism 2.0.
> muh pure driving experience
> muh skill behind the wheel
>muh thinly veiled elitism
>Yeah, but, you know, without having to explain all the things it "just is", we have a term for it.
its a buzzword meant to sell nvidia car-gpus to people with no idea that they're getting swindled. Look at any presentation by Hwang at trade shows to see how disgusting this is.
I'm all for self driving cars, but why didn't google solve an easier and most common annoyance like trains?
It's a much simpler system, and so much of it is already computerized.
"Self-driving" trains and metro trams would be so good, and probably drive accidents, strikes and prices down.
I don't see why not
People are interested in self driving cars because the younger generations are becoming more and more full of cucks who want to give up all the joys of life for more convenience. It takes a true cuck to not enjoy driving a vehicle and wanting a computer to drive you as you sit there looking at your phone. This is the future. Cucks will wake up and either ride share to work or ride in their small self driving car to work. At work they will sit in a cubicle for 9 hours staring at a screen or multiple screens. After work they will ride in their self driving car 15 minutes back to their 800 sq ft apartment in the city. They'll also be on call for work 24/7 thanks to self driving cars, smartphones, tablets, etc.
You are thick aren't you
>companies are using it therefore it's a buzzword
I suppose "beautiful" and "design" are buzzwords too ? What about "mileage" or "computer" ?
Can't say for other cities, but Paris already has self-driving metro cars
If you don't have a drivers licenses you won't be allowed to drive a "self driving" car anytime soon. Self driving cars are not and will not be autonomous even in 20 years because there are way too many situations that require human input to resolve.
Communication with human beings, interpreting other human being's intentions and improvisation is mandatory for a human driver but a computer sucks at those things.
why are you getting so upset, nvidiashill? Deep learning is a marketing buzzword for comparing a series of images. Its been made to sound like its ALIVE and it LEARNS but it doesnt do a any of these things. Images are compared in a function, probably written in C++, on their ridiculously expensive car-gpu that they want to get integrated into every car company that will fall for this
Yes, America. I had to get an ultrasound on my nuts a few months ago, was in the hospital for 2 hours, only actually receiving care for 30 minutes and got a bill for 996 dollars. 60 bucks for the ultrasound, 600 for the room I was in, and 330 for a "detailed consultation". The doctor told me "uh, I have no idea why your balls hurt. Come back if it gets worse".
This system is fucked.
Sometimes when I think my country is shit, I look at other countries and feel a lot better
>They didn't have to take over
Right, but that's not the way the government will see it - much like taxi drivers haven't viewed uber as a new platform and have been trying to fight them forever.
It's not really cheaper though right now. The infrastructure cost needed to implement the systems on such a large scale would be pretty costly. Pretty sure they wouldn't mind letting a couple people die instead.
>goes to shit doctors
>doesn't even talk to them to try and find proper results
>just bends over for them even though you're paying for it
Americans everyone, complete and utter pushovers.
in the UK public transport generally reaches equilibrium with private because people stop trying to drive when there are jams every morning on the way into London and seek out alternatives.
Places like Germany and Switzerland public transport is just clearly better and cheap as fuck/
Self driving car = no operator
no operator = more risk
Every other mode of transport hasn't automated for exactly this reason. Railroads, sealines, and airlines all still require operators because if something were to go bad (and given the scale of each mode, things inevitably will), not having an operator means lots of money lost in damages that could otherwise be pinned on operator error.
Seriously, even railroads, which operate in one dimension, don't automate because one fuck up means a crash and lost money.
Had expired the month prior, since I had just gotten a new job.
Also, don't you see anything fucked up with the idea that you should pay a monthly fee to one group of jews so that they can outjew another group of jews when you get hurt? Here's an idea: hospitals should just charge a fair price.
Fun fact, the 996 dollar bill I got was AFTER they "adjusted it" for my income, by cutting it in half.
They wanted to charge me almost $2000 for an ultrasound and a doctor to tell me he had no idea what the problem was. I make much better money now, and can pay this bill off easily, but I refuse. I won't get fucked over like that.
I haven't paid a dime, and I told them so. Now I just gotta wait till a THIRD group of jews determines that my credit score should plummet. :^)
>>Should be relatively cheap as google almost never charges for software
you realize that google, if they are serious, will just license their tech out to the big three right? Why bother competing when you can just make money doing nothing. It'd also be an addon you'll have to pay $100/year or whatever to Onstar to use.
seriously this, self-driving cars only appeal to fat suburbanites that have 60+ minute commutes since they'll readily pay money to avoid driving
How can a self driving car follow the instructions of a police officer at a blocked road or accident scene?
How can a self driving car make decisions in unforeseen situations like a lorry reversing the wrong way on a one-way street?
How about interpreting if a parking space is legal?
How about that drunk guy lying in the middle of the street at night?
A computer has to be able to solve 100% of these kind of situations if self driving cars to be truly autonomous and not be like google cars that require a sober person with a drivers licenses behind the wheel at all times.
It's not wrong. No operator means that if there's a software glitch (and all software has glitches), then there's an accident. But as an operator aide, the operator simply corrects where the program fails.
Even if it's just 1 failure in 10,000 that's easily 1000 failures for every major metro area and 32000 for the entire US. And every at fault accident will cost the owner of the vehicle money, even if they had no way of controlling the vehicle themselves. That's a larger risk, one which Jews (insurance companies) will charge for.
Again, look at every other mode of transport. Totally eliminating the operator is virtually impossible.
'Operator error' isn't a magical incantation that makes your liability go away. Companies end up paying for employee errors all the fucking time.
no shit sherlock, I never claimed that it makes liability disappear. But in the majority of cases (aka the ones you don't hear about) the employee is blamed and fired. The company might even get an insurance payout to cover their losses.
Think about every fender bender a truck might get into just through random chance. Under normal circumstances the driver is blamed, fined/demerited, and life continues. But with a self-driving car the company itself automatically takes on the blame so then they are fined directly.
>when they do happen, the company is blamed and not the dumb driver.
Do you live under a rock ? When accidents happen due to human error, the dumb driver might get blamed but the company is the one who will get sued
If you're in your autonomous vehicle and it crashes into something and the police officer comes over, they cant arrest you. It was a software error. This will lead to fewer crimes
>When accidents happen due to human error, the dumb driver might get blamed but the company is the one who will get sued
Only if it's proven that they were negligent. In most cases, they can point to driver negligence and be free of liability. The person can then sue the driver in a civil claims court. In effect, they can knock liability down to the driver. This changes if there is no driver, in which case the company is held directly liable (unless they can prove negligence on part of the manufacturer).
The company is only sued if, say, they knew the driver was acting negligently (or didn't pass safety exams or something) but still let them drive.
>they cant arrest you. It was a software error.
I never claimed anything about getting arrested. I'm talking about money. The driver may be free of criminal charges, but they will still have to pay damages since they are the owner of the vehicle that crashed.
Driving when respected and rules followed, can be very safe and relaxing.It's also very fun. For driverless if it becomes very big very soon id like to have it take an option for "randomly driving around the city for x minutes" for chillin moments
It makes sense if you think about it. In a court, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It would take a lot to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a company is responsible for every fender bender and accident they have. In most cases, it boils down to the company overworking or otherwise knowingly letting a bad driver drive.
Now when you remove the driver, this whole thing is voided since the company (the owner) is directly held liable for the damages their vehicles cause in all cases. Which means none of them are going to do full automation precisely because that's not a cost they want to take.
I use the example of railroads since RRs have had automation tech since the mid 60s, but don't use it because that would mean after every accident they would automatically get blamed. This costs money. Notice how in the Amtrak crash last year the blame was placed on the driver, and not the computerized braking system the train he was driving used.
No, they would not. The driver would not be arrested in the first place since they would have committed no crime.
But that's only criminal law. In civil courts the owner of the vehicle still has to pay damages since they are the owner of the vehicle and thus take on the liability. With enterprises, they can effectively kick this liability down to individual drivers instead of taking it on themselves.
Do you get what I'm saying?
Inb4 self driving cars become standard
Inb4 insurance companies start to impose stiff penalties for having manual control for more than a certain % of drive time.
Inb4 manual control becomes more of a hot button issue than gun control
Inb4 a radical subculture based on manual control develops
Inb4 this subculture pushes the envelope of manual control
Inb4 manconts gets corrupted into "madcunts"
Inb4 madcunts merge with gun nuts
Pic related is the future
driverless cars won't make human drivers disappear, if anything licensing standards will just increase which is better across the board
driverless transport of any kind is a good thing, less taxing on humans to perform tasks like driving, where even if you're 100% right all the time, some idiot will still fuck you over - now they have more mental capacity to focus on other tasks, like being productive at work instead of using 4chan all day
The coolest thing about driverless cars is that it means a lot less cars will be needed overall since they can drive themselves between customers. That means a lot less traffic infrastructure and cheaper transportation for everyone.
>like customers that don't have accidents.
It is the car that is insured, not the driver. The insurance policy on the car merely states who is allowed to drive it. Since driverless cars have no driver then the question must be asked, who is liable for accidents and that inevitably means "the owner". This obviously has very serious implications for the hire car and taxi industry, not to mention delivery companies and anyone who owns a large fleet of commercial vehicles
You don't need to share your car with strangers, just go in with a few friends
There's no reason you couldn't treat it like a credit union if your group wanted to buy a few cars to make sure demand was met
If someone fucks up, kick em out
Why do millenials always assume the power has to be in a corporation or the government's hands?