SELF-DRIVING CARS BTFO MACHINE "LEARNING" BTFOD h

Why would you be happy about this?

>>61781554
so that someone can crash at 45 mph going past a stop sign

>>61781452
Well great looks like autocars won't work in the hoods and ghettos now.

>>61781580
If they realised that this can fuck their learning algorithm theyre just gonna refine it so that it sees past it

Or use some GPS sign system where they don't even need to scan signs

If anything this has just delayed self driving cars going mainstream. No benefit to anyone

oh no a small hurdle
>technologically leaps over it

>>61781452
This is why I'll never buy a self driving car in the next 50 years. Anybody who trusts one has no common sense.

Can't wait until municipalities start using captcha signs to stop self driving cuckmobiles.

>>61781600
>Jamal cannot get home with a stolen self-driving car

sheeeeeeiiiiiiit.jpg

>>61781805
kek. I can legitimately see this happening.

>luddites trying to stop progress
what else is new

>>61781803
t. future 50+k stock owner

>>61781805
>equip motorcycle with emergency vehicle transponder
>filter past the cucks as they're forced to make space
>zero risk involved

The future is bright

File: 1501903147343.jpg (59KB, 424x600px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 424x600px

>>61781452
I recall some military project where they taught an AI to tell MBTs from APCs pretty well. Then they demoed it for high-ranking officers and government officials... and it failed miserably.
Turned out all their pictures of MBTs were taken in sunny weather, and the APCs in cloudy. And they taught their AI to tell the weather apart

>>61781744
If your goal is to delay self driving cars going mainstream what's the problem?

File: Comfy_guy[1].jpg (41KB, 600x579px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x579px

>set robot car to drive somewhere "8 hours later"
>spread out in the backseat with a blanket and pillow and go to sleep
>wake up in new far away place and spend the day exploring the world
rinse and repeat

>>61781744
>No benefit to anyone
except it benefits any person stupid enough to let a car drive you to your death, all this little hacks will force developers to focus more on real life scenarios and less in muh utopic automata world

>>61781830
>self-driving car is stolen by jamal
>owner reports it stolen using the find my car app
>car doors are locked remotely
>car drives jamal to the police station

Will human controlled driving be banned in the future? How hard will it be to root your car and take control over it again?

>>61782054
>>61782067
self driving cars will benefit everyone????

File: IMG_5592.jpg (163KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1024x1024px

>>61782088

>>61782054
You're mistaken my friend, my goal is to take cages of the road to make space for more efficient forms of transport like bicycles, motorcycles and public transport

File: 1457998720645.jpg (354KB, 718x1049px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 718x1049px

>>61781805
I could see some places doing that to keep up the traffic ticket revenue, especially with speed signs and so on. Change to a captcha sign with a new lower speed, and don't place the new speed limit in an easily accessible database. Then just have a few cops pulling everyone over.

>>61782106
no they won't???

>>61782339
systematize driving and automobile traffic, dramatically reducing car accidents
give humans more time to do whatever they want
lower travel costs

>>61781452
>Tarek El-Gaaly, senior research scientist at autonomous driving startup Voyage, tells Car and Driver that there are solutions for these sorts of attacks, though, that can be incorporated into autonomous driving systems. Context is one fix, and a car could be able to tell if it misidentified a sign based on, say, its location, and know that it shouldn't go highway speeds in an urban area. "In addition," he said, "many self-driving vehicles today are equipped with multiple sensors, so failsafes can be built in using multiple cameras and lidar sensors."
wow it's fucking nothing

>>61782443
Get hacked and controlled by governments and criminal organizations, used to restrict movement and control the population. Your freedom will be gone, and you will be totally vulnerable to whoever has the REAL keys to your car.

>>61782443
but but muh freedoms

>>61782482
>there are solutions
>failsafes can be built in
>a car could be able
Of course. And then they'll find something else to fool the sensors.

>>61782545
Only buy cars that still allow you the option to manually drive then.

You'll still reap the infrastructural benefits.

>>61782578
Unless the manual option is a purely mechanical switch any control will be illusory, and easily disabled via remote overrides.

>>61782600
Mod your car then...

What's the problem

>>61781768
>>61781867
>lelee technology is always good
You people are retarded. Do you even understand cause and effect? Doubt it, you sounder superstitious to me.

>>61782618
>Implying that won't be illegal
Are you blind to history?

>>61782641
It's not illegal now.

Lobby for or against as you please.

It's your property.
No judge will ever tell you that you can't do mess with it.

>>61781768
>leaps over and into the ditch.

>>61782618
Do you even understand how dangerous and difficult it is to modify the CAN in a modern car? You would likely end up disabling the breaks or all all the warnings. Those things are programmed in complete spaghetti code.

Also what about all those that cannot modify their car due to lack of knowledge? Is it right for them to be vulnerable?

>>61782672
Not to mention the tools are extremely expensive and usually limited to certified engineers who are licensed by the manufacturer.

>fucking with signs to fuck with machines
we cyberpunk now

>>61782719
The early-cyberpunk era started 2011-2013. We will be full cyberpunk by 2025.

>>61782033
All they had to do was use a larger learning sample size, or have the ai modify its samples for color and brightness

File: 1485402200964.jpg (11KB, 320x350px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x350px

Just buy an old Soviet Niva or army UAZ. Pure mechanics, no electronic hoobaloo.

This wouldnt happen with proper mass transit.

ppl have been cutting down stop signs forever or just put a bag over it

>>61782804
Or you can get a non-shit western car and not have to deal with eastern bloc engineering

>>61782064
>It drives you to the nearest McDonalds (or other sponsored place) and parks for the next few hours.
>Reduces traffic, pollution, wear and saves charge/fuel.

File: 1502018999375.png (3KB, 600x550px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 600x550px

>>61782877
>western cars
>not shit
>not have to deal

>>61782771
Or maybe design actual image recognition instead of relying on an AI that they can't prove to not have vulnerabilities.
In this case they even precisely know the 3D model that the computer should look for, why even use a learning-based AI? Oh, right, because they are lazy incompetent fucks.

>>61782895
t. faggot commieboo

If you've ever driven a commiewagon for any longer than your average hop to grocery store and back you wouldn't be talking such horseshit

>>61782901
This is the flaw with AI, they are inherently impossible to audit since their "source" is closed even to those who train them. The ease of development completely sacrifices any assurance of the code's correctness.

>>61782088
>jamal = anon = owner = hacked phone owner

>>61782930
I think the correct term is slavaboo

File: byefreeza.jpg (81KB, 500x353px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x353px

>>61782600
>future
>manual car
>AI cruze control
>AI takes you for a ride

>>61782983
there were east german cars too (wartburg, trabant) and they fall into the same category

>>61782930
>Soviet
Not Russian. After the fall of USSR there were 15 years of industry falling apart and 10 years of trying to start anew. At least "classic" models get safety *options* like ABS or airbags these days.

But yeah, >>61782804 was a Varg meme. He has those cars and seems to be fond of them.

>>61782641
are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_to_Repair_Act
tl;dr
>manufacturers try to "closed-source" their cars
>it would be illegal for the owner to perform any work on the car the manufacturer does not want them to (as in things other than changing the windshield wipers, for now...)
>congress says no u can't do that
>car owners right to work on their car now saved

so yes you will be free to modify and do whatever you want to your car, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be legal for you to drive it on public streets because safety regulations and whatever else

File: 1466985249667.jpg (54KB, 576x382px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 576x382px

This is what we need.

how bad could radar/gps jammers screw self-driving cars? just curious haha

File: ultima.jpg (225KB, 1920x937px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1920x937px

>>61783193
meanwhile in reality what an open source type car actually is

>>61782933
Well technically speaking you ought to just run it in a real world environment as trial for a few weeks and then it'll have its issues ironed out by more learning, right?

>>61783263
if they could actually learn but right now they are the stage of bruteforcing how to recognize signs ie. recaptcha.

>>61783293
Yea, couldn't that, in the context of war, be done by assistance of soldiers? Equip soldiers with bodycams, and every time they spot a tank in the field and report it to their superiors (which is standard procedure in my army, when I remember my conscription times right) the bodycam asssociates the shape with the tank model in question. Then gather the data from all the soldiers in the theatre and pile it into the AI. Basically recaptcha: IRL edition.

>>61782541
fucking luddite

>>61783333
seeing as how they have inflatable tanks and stuff like that relying only on vision would be a mistake.

>>61783338
If the car was totally offline and/or had a purely mechanical manual override then it would be fine. But no manufacturer will ever do that.

>>61783371
Nobody actually uses inflatable tanks to fake nowadays. That shit is WW2 era. Everyone has thermals now, at the very least in their armored vehicles if not on their person.

I recall watching a demo video of a self driving car put out by google of the car driving from some cuck shed to an office.
Nice video with a high level of driving ability. However, the car broke two traffic laws and became confused at two points.
The very best outcome selected from who knows how much footage and they still committed two violations and misread the conditions twice.
Not looking great for city driving.

I think the self driving car has some potential in putting long distance truckers out of business, and create the job of 'harbor pilots' for humans to complete the last leg of a shipment in a city. That or having trucks form convoys of trucks drafting to reduce fuel by driving almost touching on highways in blocks of 4 or 5 trucks.

File: 1439759580696.jpg (40KB, 681x496px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 681x496px

>>61783432
>Nobody actually uses inflatable tanks to fake nowadays.
I hope you don't seriously believe that. Most initial reconnaissance is done via satellites or very high altitude planes. Fake tanks, trucks, bunkers, buildings, landscaping, missiles, whatever, are all very much a thing still...

>>61782672
>money to buy self driving car
>somehow not enough money to buy a 2005 shitbox for muh freedoms

>>61782088
so jamal *can* get home with a stolen self-driving car, after all

>>61781744
Don't be so simple minded. This isn't about one specific example, it is about the fragility of their while approach to computer vision. If there is one single pattern that will completely screw it over there are likely to be many more.

>>61783525
Well my army didn't have any of it. As far as I know, the US army doesn't use that anymore either. And all aerial reconnaisance is done with at the very least thermal scans as well. An inflatable tank can't exactly emit the kind of heat a tank engine produces without melting.

File: 1491973600825.jpg (85KB, 840x623px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 840x623px

>>61783379
>>61782094
>Will human controlled driving be banned in the future?
Anyone who thinks this will happen is paranoid and dumb

File: IMG_7229.jpg (101KB, 1180x842px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1180x842px

>>61783338
>How dare you question the wisdom of eternal automation and question if losing agency is too steep a price to pay

Think a little harder next time. This is how you end up with many many stupid deals.

File: Unbenannt.png (323KB, 396x576px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 396x576px

>>61781452
oh no "special stickers" , i mean its still a red octagon , a few black squares and dots wont stop a proper sign recognition software , also we solve captchas every time we post here to train the AI anyways , so this is just hilarious tinfoil hat posting
pic related , my captcha for this

>>61783569
Stop posting on 4chan and get on horseback and deliver him a strongly worded letter

>>61783525
But does it actually work?
It takes as much effort and manpower to fake a military operation or deployment as it does to do it for real. Otherwise the recon will note that while we might see what looks like an armored division we can clearly see it's only manned by 200 people rather than 10,000.

Also when you have fake tanks, aircraft and buildings that show up as not actually made of metal to sat radar it makes the cost of decoys vastly higher than any practical value.

>>61783591
>not intentionally fucking with the "street signs" and "vehicles" captchas as much as you can get away with

>>61783565
I can easily see it happening. Human drivers will be said to slow things down and cause more accidents. Policies will be put in place to create "automated only" driving lanes in metropolitan areas. Those lanes will extend further until humans are only allowed to drive on streets and highways and freeways will become AI-only. Eventually once the last manual cars become relics in about 50 years manual driving will be banned outright.

>>61783629
and be banned from highways and freeways*

>>61781554
>wanting the botnet to succeed
shiggydiggy

>>61783591
> won't stop a peer sign recognition software
Anon, that's the whole point of the article. It just did!

>>61783591
>thinks computers see as easily as humans

Ya know that isn't true, right? Shit we see as obvious can trick a computer. The computer won't think like us and go "close enough". And if it did, that can lead to other issues if it runs across a fake stop sign or any other type of sign. Even those stupid things people put on their lawns could do it then.

Hence why captchas can fuck a computer up, but a human can easily do it. They don't see and comprehend things like we do.

>>61783245
outrageously impractical?

>>61783629
banning driving would be like banning alcohol, no one will care, everyone will still drive and no one will enforce such a rule

>>61783591
>proper sign recognition software
This doesn't exist. Everyone uses a variation of slightly specialized general purpose pattern recognition AI. No matter how much training data you have, the pattern recognition will be too focused on some details of the sign and ignores some other parts. In the end you have an overspecialized piece of linear shit that is exactly the reason for these misidentifications.

>>61783708
Carpool lanes are enforced where I am, I don't see how this is much different.

>>61783706
outrageously fast and awesome

>>61783726
>I don't see how this is much different.
something must be wrong with your eyes then

>>61781452
https://blog.openai.com/adversarial-example-research/
the idea isn't new, but doing it in physical space with stickers and shit is cute.

>>61783726
Nigga there's at least 3 lanes for your single occupancy ass and you have to take up the one lane that's for busses and commuters?

>>61783745
Automated lanes: A lane used for a specific purpose to increase safety and reduce traffic
Carpool lanes: A lane used for a specific purpose to reduce traffic and reduce pollution

>>61783726
>Carpool lanes are enforced where I am, I don't see how this is much different.
A carpool lane is an admission by whoever plans the roads that they have given up or have been commanded by the politicians to build a road to try and make buses which otherwise can't function due to poor road planning and construction.

>>61783760
>>61783784
I'm not saying carpool lanes are a problem, I'm saying they will set the precedent for the phasing out of human drivers.

>>61781554
>wanting to vegetate so much you don't even drive anymore
Kill yourself already.

>>61781452
>putting anything near a stop sign is now a felony
Good luck finding your dog now little Timmy ;_;

>>61783801
I don't think so, because by your logic they would have phased out single occupancy already

>>61783822
Not everyone can or will carpool. However eventually 95% cars will be self driving and that number will only ever grow.

>>61781452
>he doesn't want a cyberpunk future with self driving cars being hacked by blackhats and cops alike

>>61783840
>95% cars will be capable of self driving
ftfy

>>61783848
Go play Shadowrun and stop trying to make the world your personal LARP.

>>61783867
t. Luddite

>>61783855
No, WILL BE self-driving.

>>61783840
Not everyone can or will buy a self driving car either.
Hell we haven't even gotten it working yet and you're worried it'll outlaw conventional cars.
It won't happen within your lifetime.
More likely it'll take over for truck drivers.

>>61783525
german army literally has an entire devision devoted to build fake tanks , heck if they want they can make 1:1 plastic replicas of em for museums and shit (wich happend , german tank museum munster has a plastic tiger 1 , wich looks exactly like the real deal , cant tell the difference until you touch it)

>>61783886
No, CAPABLE OF self-driving.

>it's a commie hipster pipe dream fags who have been declaring singularity soon for 10 years can't accept the technology is progressing at a snails pace thread

File: 1502020027369.jpg (17KB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x358px

>>61783537

>>61783537
Top fucking kek

>>61783884
I like technology. I just don't see why we need to shove it into everything and further harm our freedoms, human dignity, or while it's still easy to trick them with a fucking sticker. Maybe you technofetishists could stop shoving all this onto others who don't want it. You wanna hack cars, fine. That does not mean I should be forced to have a car drive for me because YOU want some overly lazy and hedonistic future. Go hack your own cars, I'll stick to the car I actually control.

>>61783815
this is only an argument if you are not a burger and has at least driven a car without power steering.

>>61783954
You should stop using 4chan and go scribble your opinions on the wall where you can be in control

>>61783954
>That does not mean I should be forced to have a car drive for me
paranoid and dumb

Good.
fuck cagers

>>61783677
>>61783689
>>61783709
call me a noob or whatever , but how hard could it be to tell sign recognition software that
"red octagon = stop" its universal and pretty easy too recognize afaik , i can understand that street name signs are harder to recognize , but for that you just use GPS like your satnav does (wich already has speed limits programmed in aswell)

>>61783969
Holy fuck does someone pay you to spout this nonsense?
Since when not wanting to be forced to do something in a particular way means someone's dumb and paranoid?

>>61784003
CIA niggers are real

>>61783984
Very hard. Someone posted a link earlier. You can move a few pixels and have a computer call a panda a gibbon with a 99% accuracy. They don't see and comprehend things like we do.

If you hate driving your car so much, get rid of it and get a bus pass already

>>61783969
Get your shilling away

>>61784003
it's that you think it's possible that you will be banned from driving that makes you paranoid and dumb

>>61783964
But I DD a old car, I have no problems not having power steering.
Missing air conditioning, but that's something I can live with

>>61783954
>I'll stick to the car I actually control.
mate unless you're using a throwback with a carb, all your controls are electronic

what if we could teach an animal to drive and just use it's brain for autopilot. would that be too unethical?

>>61784025
>hahaha look how much i fit in guys!
calm down son

>>61784023
I do. Too bad (((corporations))) in control of our (((governments))) irreversibly ruined the infrastructure of our cities to accomodate the cancerous invention known as car.

>>61783984
GPS is too imprecise
Signs get dirty, look different in different lighting, overall recognizing that is much less consistent than a black and white pattern.
They ought to use invisible markers or infrasonic tech, but the latter requires power and the former has many of the same drawbacks as the black and white squares.

>>61784029
It happened in the past already.
Introduction of a car resulted in roads being unavailable to almost anyone but cars, ie people were banned from walking. What makes you think this won't happen again with automated vehicles?

>>61784032
There is a difference between being electronic and having control, and relying on said electronics to drive me on their own. The issue is not electronics, it is what the application of this particular thing will mean for other areas of life. And I like my freedom too much to have a cuckcar drive me to and fro when I want to go somewhere.

>>61784064
i already told you here >>61783708

>>61784041
fuck ethics, that sounds neat. I would suggest a bird, or something else thats used to moving fast.

>>61784108
>fuck ethics
A perfect example of the Big Brother sycophants who want to give up driving or doing anything and settle for """""""""""convenience"""""""""" over freedom or responsibility.

>>61784085
>noone will care
yeah haha because absolutely fucking noone got punished for moonshining and selling liquor during the prohibition era and totally did not create unique brand of criminals. don't forget that the law enforcement didn't care either


why is it that always in a discussion about anything beyond a quasi-relevant topics on 4chan i'm always pitched against someone with the intellectual prowess of an amoeba? christ

>>61783984
because neural networks (which most modern system are based on) doesnt learn like a human does.
best way is to imagine it as a black box.
you give it an image and it gives you a classification.
But there is no exact way to tell how it does the classification (is it the color red? the shape of the sign? the edge between red and white? the red hole in "O"? all of the things combined? did it learn some bullshit, which isnt even related to the stop sign?)
you can try to dissect your network, use some form of deconvolution, try augmentation. but in the end, you can always generate white noise images and get false classifications.

things like the sticker on the stop sign can easily fool a good network which hasnt encountered this before. but it can also used for further training and the next network version wont be fooled by this again.

>>61784132
Freedom is overrated
Happiness is the true goal

>>61784146
happiness is the ultimate slavery

>>61784146
Cool. So you want computers to drive for you, do you also have other people come fuck your wife for you because you're too lazy to do it?

>>61784169
having sex is fun
driving isn't fun

>>61783984
Programming computer vision for flat known objects is not very hard. Thing is that what is commonly known as AI doesn't work like that. You don't "tell" it that something has given traits, you let it find those traits by itself and it doesn't necessarily work out too well.

For a well-designed sign recognition program you'd need a lot more work-hours than is currently put in, and all staff would have to understand more than basic linear algebra that's taught in standard CS. It will also cost a lot more computing power than a set of non-branching linear operations, so I'm not sure it would even run on a consumer-priced processor.

Basically the problem is a combination of stupid designers that plague software design and lacking technology/breakthroughs.

To address other comments:
>>61784021
This is very much solvable, but best solutions require nonlinear (w.r.t. pixel colour) algorithms, that are again more costly.
>>61784049
Lightning, dirt, etc. is harder, but I believe still well doable with not-too-complex algorithms. Something like a RFID on signs would indeed be a much better idea, though. Markers can work passively, but I'm not sure how that scales when signs and cars are increased.

>>61784137
did i say it would be exactly like banning alcohol? i meant what i said no one will care, everyone will still drive and no one will enforce such a rule
>i'm always pitched against someone with the intellectual prowess of an amoeba?
says the paranoid retard

File: 1474765779537.png (366KB, 815x115px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 815x115px

>>61784137

>>61784179
Epicurus would be disappointed in you.

>>61784162
Yes, and?

>>61784169
If that made me happy, maybe.

>>61783519
>and create the job of 'harbor pilots' for humans to complete the last leg of a shipment in a city
This already is a job. They board incoming ships and guide them to port.
Ironically, harbor pilots are ex-ship captains with years of experience and knowledge, so if AI replaces ship captains, there won't be a way to gain real world experience for future harbor pilots.

>>61781452
>Starting by analyzing the algorithm the vision system uses to classify images, they used a number of different attacks to manipulate signs in order to trick machine learning models into misreading them.

lmao gl getting access to these proprietary algos

>>61784183
RFID is too short range. It only works within a couple inches from a reader.

>>61784243
I don't know much about different passive chips, but there are long-ranged passive markers too. Just today I was listening to a talk by a research team that has created chips that communicate and are powered by WLAN with a range of 50-100m, and up to 1km with more sensitive protocols. Basically the transmission cost would fall to the car, and the marker would be a selective reflector and absorber of the signal.

>>61784238
I don't need to analyze shit to cut a sign down

>>61784064
>people were banned from walking
Lol wat
>>61784325
That would probably work, only thing is that tech is still developing so they aren't using it now.
These self driving cars are still very much in the early stages of experimental. Right now they basically just try out every idea they can build out right now and see what the results are.

>>61784421
people where banned from walking on the ROADS as those where now CAR territory

>>61784660
People aren't forbidden from walking on the roads at all though
Also a sidewalk is still considered a part of the roadway

>>61784660
lmao where the fuck do you live? pyongyang?

>>61784234
Wow. Failure to read and understand.
For trucks, not ships.

>>61781744
>This is not a problem, because someone will probably solve it!
Jesus, just kill yourself

>>61784681
lemme just walk in the middle of the fucking highway , you are not allowed to walk on a busy road or cross randomly (aka jaywalking)

Tampering with signage is already illegal and it's not something people are immune to. I've heard plenty of stories about kids taking stop signs and accidents occurring as a result.
The signage systems and traffic laws are not a fiat thing. They evolved around driver needs and in tandem with commercial products. I find it frustrating that governments (so far as I know) aren't working with autonomous car creators to design a more machine friendly and tamper resistant standard of signaling. Autonomous cars would lower all sorts of municipal expenses in the long run.
I don't see that changing in the future because this is a race between private companies and the challenge is less about this one application and more about the core technology that has many uses. If they can't compensate for minor alterations to a sign, then they aren't making a system any more robust than a camera that can't read a scuffed up QR code.

>>61784864
In almost all jurisdictions it is not a crime to walk on a highway provided you're not obstructing the flow of traffic.

File: .jpg (215KB, 1273x1800px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1273x1800px

look at these examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2IebCN9Ht4
neural networks are inherently non-deterministic and will always have issues like thsi

>>61783815

>wanting to sit on a chair instead of walking to your destination

are you even healthy?

>>61783815
In the first world, public transportation is actually viable

>>61783554
>>61783525
russia has entire inflatable air defence battalions that give off realistic thermal and radar signatures as well as visual

you can even buy surplus inflatable military stuff online

https://ythello.en.alibaba.com/product/60429628892-802608226/inflatable_Military_dummy_Inflatable_S_300_missile_system.html

>>61785641
In what city?

>>61784032
You can buy totally un-electronic cars, like older cheap autos, or some fancy all-manual luxury cars, if you wish.

>>61784070
You're retarded if you think any self driving car won't have a manual override

File: 1496041729360.jpg (59KB, 395x401px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 395x401px

>>61781452
And they seriously believe ML/NNs will give rise to strong AI

>>61781452
"sorry sir we'll have to take a detor, there are known sign hackers in this area"

niggas in the hood already complain about Uber and Pizza hut not coming in their area
now this shit

File: art.png (803KB, 963x600px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 963x600px

>>61785618
The obvious answer is to re-engineer human beings so that they better appreciate abstract art.

>>61785618
>>61782901
>>61781452
machine learning cucks on suicide watch
turns out i was right all along

>>61781452
i remember reading kind of a similar thing with glasses that impede scanners to recognize faces.

>>61781452
something like sql injection would be fun to watch

>>61781554
Technically this helps expose flaws in the system and force developers to ensure their technology is designed defensively.

Breaking algorithms and systems is how they're improved.

>>61781554
its good that this was found now and not later when theres thousands of these fucking things on the road at the same time

>>61781580
but anyone behind the wheel of a self-driving car can just as easily see the car isn't slowing down, and take control of it.

File: 1500898319001.png (26KB, 713x611px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 713x611px

I bet it's all because the idiots who wrote the algorithms analyze visual data in RGB space instead of HSV or Lab space.

If the purpose is to make machines learn to interpret visual data meant for human eyes, why use fucking RGB?

>>61781452
>yfw a correct term for a virus designed for a neural network would be "meme"

Ok, let me break it down to you laddies.

These retards are parsing visual information through raster data analysis.
Which is fucking retarded because humans don't see in raster. They see in shapes. 90% of human vision is shape differentiation through value contrast.
Color doesn't even come in to it.

If they want to emulate human vision, they should teach the machines to break down data into something like vector shapes, not compare BGRBGRBGR sequences to each other. Jesus.
Of course there's an entire fucking dimension of numerically similar data sequences that don't make a lick of fucking sense to humans. They're testing for the wrong variables. They spent billions of dollars on a false premise? Retards.

Should have hired me.
t. graphics designer and artist

90% of data encoded in an RGB image is thrown out by humans because human vision additionally encodes it into psychovisual information. They're analyzing garbage data.

I'm so smart.

>>61786750
you said what I was thinking. get out of my head

Does this have any implications for self-driving trucks that would be driverless exclusively on highways?

>>61786750
Ugh, wrong. They see shapes as well, just in a different way. For example they can easily tell apart different species of big cats because they pick up their stripe/dot patterns.

>>61781554
Because we are learning about this now, before self driving cars really take off.

This means we can work on creating more robust identification algorithms before accidents have a chance of occurring,

>>61781554
Just proves self driving cars can't deal with exception handling at all. If a damaged stop sign is all it takes to fuck them up, it has NO chance in the real world of driving.

>>61786807
this has been an issue in automated robotics for decades. I remember reading how a college was trying to teach robots how to navigate a room and recognize shapes as a kid and I'm 30.

>>61786792
The stop sign thing in particular doesn't, but the general idea of analyzing computer vision networks in order to find ways to manipulate them with the smallest possible environmental changes certainly does.

>>61786830
How long do you think it'll be until self-driving trucks? Interested if it's worth pursuing as a career.

File: index.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>61786804
They're just analyzing for patterns of consecutive data sequences. GGGBBGGGBBGG vs GBGBGBGBGBG etc.
They're not actually formulating a shape-object or a data representation of the shapes.

Never mind that there's huge swathes of garbage information in raster images that humans don't care about, that the algorithms are still creating connections for.

When you see a red circle, your eyes see a circle, then sees that it's red.
A binary image is just going to be 90% red pixels. Where this goes wrong is the "red" meme is over represented in their data sample.

>>61783143
>so yes you will be free to modify and do whatever you want to your car, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be legal for you to drive it on public streets because safety regulations and whatever else
in this case, who the fuck cares? Would you root a phone if it meant being unable to use it with a commercial SIM card? For most people, cars are useless if you can't drive them on regular roads.

>>61786959
Rotation and scale invariance.There, you're wrong.

>>61783815
>wanting to actually manually drive around
Kill yourself for getting willingly cucked out of so much time.

>AI fuck up when they process untreated images

Whoa, who could've have guessed?!

>>61781452
>so this... is the power of machine "learning"

>>61783603
4chan can't be remotely overridden to drive me off a bridge. An AI-driven machine I entrust my body to is an entirely different level of risk than a stationary box I use to look at cave paintings on Laotian avant-garde film discussion board.

>>61787122
hey i signed up for 4chan a few months ago. how do you guys think of these "Tibetan underwater basket-weaving forum" zingers?

>>61787122
I hope you never fly anywhere because 99% of the time the computer is doing everything, not the pilot.

How much possibility do you guys think that the medium with which the data was captured to be fed to the algorithm is also being genetically encoded.
Say, 99.9% of all the images they analyze have been taken with digital cameras with certain types of lens. And this digital-camera-ness gets encoded into the algorithm.

Then some kind of different image capturing method gets invented and the machine starts making errors. There are so many points of vulnerability in this system, it's hilarious.

The entire thing lays on the premise that we've pretty much figured out data capture and representation, and nothing will ever change now, that the paradigms we use now are the 100% objective reality or something.

>>61787161
they dont use non-deterministic neural networks you fucking mongoloid

>>61784146
read Huxley you hedonistic slave

>>61787224
You realize nothing you're saying makes any sense

>>61787293
you are literally a retard

>>61787224
Who cares if your car is driven by a non-deterministic neural network? Okay, there may be a 10^-5 probability of it crashing you sometime in your life. That's pretty good compared to the odds of getting in an accident with human drivers. And even a minor accident can give you a concussion that will seriously mess up your cognition for the rest of your life.
Self-driving cars are obviously the only sane choice.
The issue of reduced autonomy is a serious drawback to the scheme, but I'm afraid that it's simply inevitable.

Another thing to think about would be that self-driving cars might implicitly assume that all street signs are valid. So you could walk by the edge of a freeway with a stop sign in your hand, and all of the self-driving cars all slam on their brakes simultaneously.

>>61787383
haha

Who cares, fully self-driving cars will never be a reality. It's just an issue of liability.

>>61787374
>pretending you can know the probability
just stop

>>61787374
random noise in the ccd could cause the car to randomly hit the breaks or swerve or crash and there is no way to be certain that you've removed these false positives

neural networks are absolutely a meme

We'll just get radio street signs to assist AI cars. HURR.

>>61787178
You're describing batch effects. It's a real problem, but nothing new.

>>61781452
i fucking predicted this anyone got the screencap

>>61782618
Nah I just won't buy a self driving cuckmobile.

Face it, you're a millennial who never learned how to drive.

>>61781554
Look at this shit, millions of dollars, state of the art ai, teams of international scientists and engineers, all BTFO by a smartass with paper-stickers

Without controlled environments technology just continually shits its pants

All AI advancements have laid on the back of the principle that you shape and change the environment to be simple in order to accommodate the stupid AI.

Why don't they just implement traffic signs with wireless beacons, or additional easily decoded visual data like QR codes, or fuck it just a digital fucking map of the city that is being cross-referenced with the GPS?
Sure, people will be able to tamper or hack them, but people can also remove real street signs or put nail boards on the road.

Why use a neural network to make a car go in straight lines and turn 90 degrees from time to time? Roads aren't a constantly changing environment that you need a generalized, on the fly adapting algorithm for.
Wait, why not use public transportation in the first place?
wtf

>>61787436
>We'll just get radio street signs to assist AI cars

>cars are """"""""""""""""self-driving""""""""""""""""
>we need to cut tress in 100 feet, put crash barriers on every road, remove animals and pedestrians and speed trillions to change every fucking on the planet

why it does remind me of something ?

>>61783519
>I think the self driving car has some potential in putting long distance truckers out of business
>what are trains

>>61787704
It reminds of trams and metro.
Things we already have.

>let's take an autonomous, individual and generalized travel method and turn it into what is essentially public transportation
Whose dumb idea was this anyway?

>>61783984
octagons don't exist in 3d

>>61787704
This jewish trick just might work. Enjoy your regular cars while you can.

>>61783815
Honestly, self-driving cars would be baller for road trips. Having to sleep at a hotel is wasting time that could be better spent traveling to the destination.

>>61787769
At this point i think the goal is to have a central traffic computer managing all the traffic flow like it were a single swarm, where you buy and personalize your seating space and the system just adds you to the flow and separates you when you reach destination

>>61787432
A fly getting in the cabin could cause a human to swerve or brake and that is a hell of a lot more likely

>>61784169
>cuckold analogies

>>61782155
Sounds like an easy way to get sued and fined for 1. not following standards and 2. intentionally endangering drivers.

File: IMG_1188.jpg (214KB, 786x859px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 786x859px

>>61783565
I want it to happen. Humans are terrible drivers.

>>61785689
Tokyo is a prime example of public transport.
He said first world not burgerland.

>>61781452
just wait a while and they will add these to the captcha so you can fix this problem for them for free while they earn millions.

>>61788521
Tokyo is tiny compared to most American cities. Pretty sure the whole of Japan would fit comfortably within New York City.

>>61781744
>Actually making sure the machine your entrusting your life with works in any condition and making more advances in the technology behind it is a bad thing!
Just admit you're impatient and want a stupid Google car now and get off your high horse, faggot.

>>61788552
>pop. of Tokyo = 9.3 million
>pop. of NYC = 8.5 million
and
Tokyo = 845 mi2
NYC = 469 mi2

>>61782443
its a good thing if it means less women driving. they are dangerous because they have to post shit on social media with their phones even when driving

>>61788624
>>61788624
Ok I'll bow to glorious Japanese superiority

>>61782600
there will always be car autists with over 50 year old cars that they use even when normies use self driving cars. they dont have any computer controllers so the botnets would not work on them

>>61788552
>being this stupid
The problem here is not population or land, but simply culture. Japanese doesn't give a shit about cars, well at least owning one. American has car dealers every where and people love to show off shiny new cars because it's ingrained into our culture. If we ever fully invested in better public transportation there will be hell from the auto industry who will split Heaven and Earth to prevent cars from going useless. That's why it's more feasible to go with self-driving cars.

Just look at automation in areas like food and retail. Even though it's the next logical step, speeds things up, services the customer the same or better, and eliminates human error people still bitch about "muh job as a cashier" and fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening.

>>61788735
That is the problem though.
The US is an absolutely huge swath of land, to the point where in many places your job can be 50 miles or more from where you live and there's not enough population to justify the cost of public transit.

>>61781554
To make the LE SINGULARITY XDDDD redditards shut the fuck up.

Friendly reminder that '''machine learning''' is actually linear optimisation with a fancy name tacked on to impress venture capitalists. You're not going to duplicate human sensory perception with highschool algebra.

>>61788775
Many cities have terrible amounts of traffic jams because of human error. They also have shitty public transportation so if you wanted to avoid one clusterfuck of travel you face another. Investing in better public transportation would solve this one way but that would require a city's council to be competent enough to gather the funds and not spend it on bullshit to pocket the rest; they also face lobbying from people in the auto industry because better public transportation = less cars on the road.

>>61788735
Japan's population density is literally an order of magnitude greater than America's. 335 vs 33 people per square km. Public transport is more feasible as population density increases. Are you really so stupid you think the two countries are comparable?

>>61788919
>implying whole countries are at all a useful scale for what, in the end, is measured in miles and feet
>>>/pol/

>>61788735
That's why there's no car culture in Japan, right? Oh wait. And land is most certainly a problem. Japan as a whole is smaller the California. Public transportation doesn't translate from Japan to the US so easily because not every city is NY or Tokyo where everything is so close together.

And I don't even live in the city where my job is, so public transport is out the question anyways. Not every city is the same or has been built around a public transportation system.

>>61788861
"The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." That includes keeping the poors busy, segregated, and poor.

>>61788972
>And I don't even live in the city where my job is,
Isn't that a product of car culture and city planning based on it?
>Not every city is the same or has been built around a public transportation system.
>doesn't know about GM buying up and scrapping city trolley systems

File: 1471176982572.jpg (72KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 700x700px

>>61789183
>Isn't that a product of car culture and city planning based on it?
I don't know, man. City planning not putting buildings and everything close together because of cars and the culture around them? This feels a bit 2tinfoil4me. Of course, I forgot I'm on /g/ and not /o/.

>>61788052
Can confirm, I did this.

>>61789242
>not putting buildings and everything close together because of cars
This much shouldn't be that controversial. If you assume cars, you don't need to put buildings so close together and can zone them apart more easily, rather than creating walkable mixed-use zones and maintaining a public transit system.

>>61781803
i would rather trust an AI that is anal about the law than a human being seeing as there are so many people going over the speed limit because they are fucking morons

i can't wait for all cars to have a black box that records the speeds so when an accident happens, insurance can look at it and deny the claim because they go over the speed limit

fuck human drivers who cant follow the speed limit and killed my wife and daughter

>>61781803
nigger
Self-driving cars ALREADY crash less than people and they currently suck dick. In just a few years, they will be thousands and thousands of times better than us and our white-line-hypnosis distracted asses.

>>61789447
Literally everybody including you before your accident regularly goes ~5mph over the speed limit.

>>61789447
>implies that speed limits aren't political
Your bait smells like chum.

>>61789447
There is literally nothing wrong with mildly speeding

>>61781452
All this means is that it'll soon be a felony to tamper with street signs in any way.

People who out shit on stop signs are idiots to begin with

>>61781803
You haven't realised how glorious a self driving car would be. "Car, drive me to Florida" [spends the 15 hours fapping, netflix, sleeping]

>>61782094
>Will human controlled driving be banned in the future?
Not in your lifetime.

>How hard will it be to root your car and take control over it again?
This is the sticky issue.

File: 1455569959459.jpg (682KB, 2048x1362px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 2048x1362px

>>61781452
>loss

>>61789447
To be fair they probably would have killed your wife and daughter even if they weren't speeding.
And they could have been speeding and simply not hit your wife and daughter.

So the speeding isn't the problem; your wife and daughter should have been in the kitchen and on her tiptoes sucking daddy's cock, respectively.

>>61783338
You have to remember how the 55 mph speed limit, seatbelts, motorcylce helmets were the end of freedom as we know it.

>>61782094
If human driving is banned, then cars are going to be going like 300+ miles per hour and turn signals, stop lights, stop signs, and more won't exist. Driving manually would be suicide, if there was even a wheel to control the car with (which there likely would not be).

>>61782930
Anon, you can drive a lada on the surface of a sun and it won't melt

>>61783620
>It takes as much effort and manpower to fake a military operation or deployment as it does to do it for real.
It takes a metric fuck ton less steel and diesel, though.

>>61789677
More than likely they'd slow the fuck down to 55mph or slower, because human fatigue and attention don't matter as much. Past 55mph, cars require significantly more power to gain the next marginal unit of speed.

>>61789753
>Human attention doesn't matter
>therefore the cars will be slower

That doesn't even make any sense anon

>>61789853
He's saying that humans tend to get tired and pay less attention the longer they're on the road, so high speed limits help humans by getting them to their destination faster so they don't get as tired or bored

>>61789853
Sure it does. It won't matter as much that you aren't getting to your destination as quickly, if you can work, surf, chat, and/or fap while on the road.

>>61789876
That's nonsensical though, speed limits exist because of the limits of human reaction times and to mitigate damage when a crash does occur.
The speed limit would probably increase, but not by much, because people are more comfortable with a slower speed and in an accident or sudden stop wouldn't have as much inertia.

>>61789934
Present speed limits exist largely to raise revenue for municipalities and to conserve fuel (see also the 55mph national maximum speed limit). We aren't exactly finding unlimited new sources of energy to add marginal mph, and it's usually a gross relative deviation from the prevailing speed that causes accidents, independently of posted limits. Therefore I expect that speed limits would stay the same or lower because there's no real value in faster daddy faster.

>>61789934
Adding, the Autobahn's history adds some perspective to the (((need))) for speed and the perils of dissimilar vehicle speeds.

>>61782088
>son this car is reported stolen
>uh i didnt know, i was in the passenger seat

>>61782088
>>61783537
I changed my mind about self driving cars. They're cool with me now

>>61790052
Well, by the time we have autonomous cars either we'll have switched to green electricity or we'll have depleted the fossil fuel reserves anyway so that's not exactly an issue in a hypothetical future scenario.

>>61789753
>Past 55mph, cars require significantly more power to gain the next marginal unit of speed.
Sure, for current cars that are designed for possibly drunken apes to be behind the wheel.

If we can make self-driving cars a thing, then the crash rate will drop so hard that a lot of safety features will be able to be foregone and cars will look way different.
I'd say that there's a pretty strong case for cars eventually not even being owned by individuals at all.

>>61790523
>Sure, for current cars that are designed for possibly drunken apes to be behind the wheel.
Actually, it's a law of physics. WIRED is hardly a treehugging Luddite source, so believe them:
https://www.wired.com/2011/04/what-will-an-85-mph-speed-limit-do-to-your-mileage/
>cars eventually not even being owned by individuals at all.
There always has been, and that case is otherwise known as public transit. Private vehicles only encourage isolation and autism.

>>61790582
>Private vehicles only encourage isolation and autism.
Also freedom.
I lived in japan for a while, and while the bus system was AWESOME for general city life, getting to friends that lived away from the main transport lines was absolutely awful.
Also, alright. Faster cars use more energy, although that much was obvious, what I was talking about was the seemingly-arbitrary 55mph band.
What that graph in the article actually appears to be showing is that for each marginal unit of velocity, the energy cost goes /down/. Moreover, I'd argue that with the growth of electric car's capacities and their growing relevancy, the actual efficiency is mattering less and less since we have extremely clean, efficient ways of generating electricity already (nuclear).

>>61790582
This assumes you always go at the max speed, and that wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. Just let people who want to go faster make that choice.

>>61781452
>>set robot car to drive somewhere "8 hours later"
>>spread out in the backseat with a blanket and pillow and go to sleep
>>wake up in new far away place and spend the day exploring the world
>rinse and repeat

You know we invented something called a train right?

>>61781554
Edgy kids in anime website

File: _g_hettorigg.jpg (949KB, 2304x1296px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 2304x1296px

>>61782719
Yes.

>>61783591
>StraBenchildren
>Sterben's Children

>>61790987
A train doesn't run on your schedule and is literally on rails.

File: 20170201_144428.jpg (883KB, 2304x1296px) Image search: [Google]

883KB, 2304x1296px

>>61784146
>Happiness
The Highest Purpose

>>61781554
Because the cars won't be open source.

>>61789677
>If human driving is banned, then cars are going to be going like 300+ miles per hour

Because humanity is limiting the laws of physics, inertia won't exist in the future, brakes will be magnetic, and cars will run inside huge vacuum tubes.

>>61791564
Get over it. Life does not revolve around your prissy little neet ass.

>>61791731
My life does, and so too does my transportation because I own a car.

>>61783549
Meanwhile...
>barrier for getting a driver's license is almost nonexistent
>people never need to retake any driving test
>cars let you drive them even when you're intoxicated
>cars can't tell if you have a license anyway
>enforcement is done by police sporadically placed all over the area, resulting in 99% of traffic violations going unpunished

So now you have 1.2 million deaths per year that are caused by human error, and you think that car automation is the fragile one?

>>61781452
This is something absolutely needed to be done.
Over and over and over again until you can't do it anymore.

>>61791811
At least the self driving car cant be a woman

>>61781452
and with this, the "keep both hands on the wheel and be prepared to take control" disclaimer will never be lifted. no company will stick their neck out and have 100% faith in their systems. It will always be the responsibility of the driver to make sure they don't die.

>clicks pictures of hot air balloons.

File: l-driver-involvement-traffic-fatalities[1].jpg (49KB, 720x304px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x304px

>>61791856

>>61788735
>The problem here is not population or land, but simply culture.

No. It is the cheap abundant land that lead to suburban creep which required the use of personal automobiles. You are retarded if you think that basic economics isn't the main driver for why the two countries developed so differently.

>>61782088
That's really fucking stupid idea.

>Jamal sees that car will not listen and is driving on his own.
>Uses his feet or other shit to bash the window in
>Jumps out through window when he has the chance (slowing down for a stop light)

Only thing that would work is letting police track down the car and stop it remotely.

>>61792150
>implying the car wouldn't have all sorts of high-def photos of jamal, possibly even a facial ID, or wouldn't stick around to watch his "escape"
>implying further that the car wouldn't be driving around this whole time with its alarm triggered
Why couldn't the owner simply disable the car remotely? Why do the cops have to be involved?

>>61791777
>own
kek. John Deere disagrees and carmakers are likely to follow suit given their first chance.

>>61784958
If you walk onto a US highway, police will pick you up, bring you off the highway, and tell you not to do that. Highways are dangerous. Walking on one will distract drivers and cause lane changes to give you a wide margin. Why would you want to do it anyway? Exit spacing in my area is about 15 miles on average, and the terrain isn't exactly flat most of the time.

If you want to walk, use a damn trail. You get to enjoy peaceful natural views and sounds instead of constantly watching your ass and breathing exhaust.

Who is Jamal?

>>61781744
Not true, this shows a vulnerability, and this is super important. It needs to be VERY safe before sticking people inside.

>>61781867
This was basically a bug test, and he found a vulnerability in the system. It's a good thing, otherwise if a blackhat found that, people could have died if they never picked it up

>>61792320
>John Deere disagrees
dude people were hacking ECUs of tractor that weren't even fully paid for and fucking up engines then trying to have it fixed under warranty. Most of that equipment is not owned to begin with, it's leased. The amount of people who own farm tractors is FAR less than the amount of people who own cars, and even less people actually have the hardware and expertise to hack their tractor.

while the manufacturer can totally say "yeah you don't "own" these ones and zeroes can't hack us or nothin we got norton and lawyers", that NEVER stops anyone from making the device do what they want. People will find a way to circumvent protections and share the information at which point the company must decide if it's worth legally retaliating which is usually a negative by the time the instructions are all over the internet.

no what happened with john deere is totally acceptible and probably will not strongly affect automotive software development because they are wildly different sectors and use cases.

>>61792843
Can't tell if shill or shitposting.

>>61782624
They're of the class that will ""earn"" the profits from muh progress, and not of the class that will end up paying for them, just as Ludd predicted.

>>61781554
Fuck 'self driving cars.'

File: kek in highres.jpg (584KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 3840x2160px

>>61781452

>>61781452
>identification algorithm
>self-driving
>self

>>61784179
>driving isn't fun
What? Have you ever driven?

>>61793364
You get over it a lot more quickly than you do sex.

>>61793364
maybe he lives in the middle of a large city, where you're constantly starting and stopping, and the roads are full of assholes

>>61782541
le tinfoil hat

>put black piece of paper over entire stop sign
>"haha, human eyes BTFO!"
>go to jail for defacing street signs

>>61793395
is that like when the condom keeps slipping off through?

>>61793425
Look up Jackie Speier's legislative history in the California State Assembly. They have sincerely tried to do it, therefore They can't be trusted not to.

>>61781452
there are people out there that don't want self driving cars to exist because they have potential to hurt or kill a person. so to show their dismay, they will go out of their way to sabotage them and ensure that one of these vehicles WILL kill someone. this is correct right?

why would anyone want this? is it all in the name of chaos and for shits and giggles? for some ones amusement? I'll admit i can be edgy but if i can inch closer to a world where I don't have to drive so i can jack off to my chinese cartoons in the back seat, i am not gonna let this get delayed.

>>61793364
>30 mph speed limit
>stop signs and red lights everywhere
>cops everywhere
>cameras everywhere
>elderly people driving at 20 mph everywhere
>teenagers driving while browsing facebook on their phones
>kids riding bikes in the street
>too poor to afford car insurance

how could anyone possibly enjoy driving?

>>61793480
I see, you live in the ghetto.

>>61793395
>not being the asshole
>not exacting your power fantasy fetish on a BMW
>not experiencing that rush after you nearly killed yourself and someone else, and got away with it completely scot-free
>not overtaking people with cars you don't like, and then slowing down to 20 k's under the speed limit when they are forced into one lane behind you
>not getting an erection after someone honks at you
>not pissing off someone enough to get them to tailgate you, and then checking their brakes
>not cucking some faggot out of his lane
>not getting someone else to scream and cry in their shitty econobox as they are powerless and can only sit and watch your devilish antics
>not making the road rules your bitch
Personally, I can't wait until self-driving cars become a thing.

>>61792320
>>implying the car wouldn't have all sorts of high-def photos of jamal, possibly even a facial ID
Two words: ASS IMPRINTS.

>>61793529
sometimes i wish i could just be an asshole, they tend to have much less trouble getting what they want

>>61793542
We've been indictrinated into letting them, of course. We're the enablers. We don't discipline our assholes properly by taking them for a little walk into the middle of nowhere. Ergo, they persist and, worse, reproduce.

>>61782064
>set it to drive off a cliff
>go to sleep in the backseat
>wake up in a new better world

The human condition binds us all. I genuinely believe that if we humans don't struggle to survive, then we will all slowly begin to lose our minds. This is why self-driving, and the greater issue of automation is such a problem. Either it will fail, or we will.

>>61793480
>50km/h speed limit
>everyone is doing 60 to 70
>hardly any cops around
>never seen a camera
>elderly people doing 15+ over the limit everywhere
Japan.

>>61781803
Given the accidents caused by people having accidents IN a car, I would rather have self-driving than them.

From strokes to sneezing to getting things in your eyes, heart attacks, pain spasms, sudden epilepsy.
Countless accidents are caused by these events happening every year.
It happens way more than you think.

I had a friend who recently sneezed and reversed in to a car when parking. Just happened to be a really nasty whiff of something that triggered a sudden large sneeze.
Insurance has been fucked since.
This from an otherwise perfect driver who only recently started compared to another friend who had crashed AND TOTALLED a car in the same time-frame. (brakes fucked and wet road)

Most accidents outside of freak events like that happen because humans are morons.
Forgetting to brake, forgetting to turn, turning too late, going too fast, missed a sign, literally couldn't read a sign because the fucking road maintenance never cleared trees away from the sign, roads are dusty/wet, potholes are deep as fuck, forgot to get car maintained, "oh I'll do it next month", etc.

I don't trust most people on the road.
Literally every time I am in a car, I see retards breaking SO FUCKING MANY road laws and I DON'T EVEN DRIVE.
Not even little minor things either, no, fucking huge things like cutting lanes prematurely or driving too close, speeding around roundabouts and so on.
Fuck people. Even Google I think it was, I think they noticed in their analysis stages that most people broke the law regularly on the roads, both minor and major ones.
They'd deliberately need to make their cars break the law to PREVENT accidents.
Again, fuck humans.

>>61794615
So true. I want auto-drive cars now!

Nearly 2 million people die every year from fatal car crashes and accidents. Another 50 million become injured or disabled from car accidents.

I don't even want to drive knowing these statistics. Humans operating a car should be a crime against humanity.

>>61794615
>I had a friend who recently sneezed and reversed in to a car when parking. Just happened to be a really nasty whiff of something that triggered a sudden large sneeze.
You mean his immediate reflex wasn't to shift his foot to the brake pedal?

>>61794962
>Nearly 2 million people die every year from fatal car crashes and accidents. Another 50 million become injured or disabled from car accidents.

asian and african shitholes doesn't count