Self-Driving Cars Won't Happen

>>1099512
You're dumb as fuck. I see them driving around literally every day. Not to mention there are a bunch of models out there that are already semi-autonomous.

>>1099515
>You're dumb as fuck. I see them driving around literally every day. Not to mention there are a bunch of models out there that are already semi-autonomous.

Oh look, a silicon valley bubble person. Remember this post, retard. Remember it when you're old and retired. Think about how naive you were, so arrogant. lol. Keep dreamin bub

>>1099512
They're pushing them, but I don't think they'll ever really catch on, not the fully autonomous type with no controls. It's all about psychology; people won't trust them because they can't control it, won't trust it, and it takes away choice. There are about 10 basic emotional needs that all people have and self-driving cars violate 3 of them. At best it'll be a more sophisticated 'cruise control' feature, or a safety feature to prevent you from rear-ending someone. But people just plain won't trust it.

Also the technology is being rushed to market by companies like Google and the auto manufacturers, who are more interested in making back the money they've invested than they are human safety. They have whole platoons of lawyers who will tell them that paying off some wrongful death lawsuits is cheaper than waiting another 5+ (probably more like 20) years to develop REAL 'AI', not the half-assed 'learning algorithms' they're passing off as AI.

Also, currently NO ONE has any actual PROOF that they're safer. All anyone has is Google and auto manufacturers' word that they're safer, and worse, they're being pushed by beaurocrats and politicians who have no fucking idea how any of it works, they just listen to all the HYPE and believe it because they don't know any better. The tech is NOT READY to be out in the wild. Your DOG is smarter than a self-driving car, and I'd trust a dog more.

>>1099524
Oh and one more thing: We don't have REAL 'AI' because we still have no idea how our own brains produce consciousness, self-awareness, or true cognition. The code they write now doesn't 'think' it just more or less follows a script and maybe 'learns' things, but it often learns wrong and is easily fooled. No one in their right mind should trust their lives to these things.

>>1099525
It could be worse, it could be human drivers.

>>1099519
The overwhelming majority of major auto companies are testing and developing this technology as we speak. Many of those companies offer vehicles with substantial semi-autonomous capabilities TODAY. The demand for them objectively exists on a mass market scale.

None of your counter-factual whining can change this.

>>1099524
> Also, currently NO ONE has any actual PROOF that they're safer.

There is mountains of hard data proving that they are safer in real world conditions. You should slit your own throat if you're honestly claiming otherwise.

>>1099527
I'd rather take my chances with human drivers than these half-assed machines.

>>1099530
You are clearly and objectively wrong. There are no fully-autonomous cars with no controls out on major highways or random streets. They're still restricted to specific places only under permit and there must be controls for a human driver, and a human driver behind the wheel. They don't go very fast. They have to have the human driver take over in places. It's a JOKE. It's not ready for general use and won't be for a long time if at all. Your 'mountain of data' is all media hype and empty promises from faggot companies like Google who have every reason to Blue Sky the thing.

>>1099537
Good job moving the goalposts.

And you are openly denying established facts that have been reviewed by scientific and academic processes.

The only course of action appropriate for you is to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

>>1099537
This is blatantly false. There has been years of publicly visible testing on highways and in low speed city environments.

There will eventually be driver-less/self-driving in the sense that a person won't be required to operate it beyond selecting a destination, but there will always be a need to have someone in it who could drive it if needed (so they'll need a normal license and to be of legal age).

Truly driver-less busses will never happen, nor taxis (maybe using short term rental as a loop hole, requiring the user to have a license as above), and it won't be a solution that can't drive and get a license. What it will be is an evolution of cruise control, for lazy drivers and to make driving safer for shit drivers.

Even trains need drivers, right? Those are probably one of the most simple forms of transportation and where being truly driver-less might one day be possible (liability would switch from the driver to the operating company though, so they'll need to put a lot of faith in the technology).

>>1099545
There are already trains that are driverless (i.e. they have no controls or steering on the train).

There are also already small shuttles (like van sized) that have no steering wheel.

>>1099542
Post your peer-reviewed,objective, unbiased, not paid for by Google or auto manufacturer studies, then.

Oh and by the way IDGAF because more than 50% of everyone say they won't trust these and they're right not to. I'd sooner walk.

>>1099543
>low speed city environments
So what? If it can't handle 100% of all situations that come up driving then it's useless and you're stupid to trust your life to it. I'd rather WALK than ride in one of these deathtraps. Habib from the middle east driving a cab is more trustworthy.

None of you are really living in reality. When you're faced with strapping yourself into a box on wheels with no way to control it whatsoever, you'll shit yourself in fear because you will have NO CONTROL over your fate. Humans can't and won't deal with that emotionally and there's no reason they should have to.

The PROPER role of this technology is as a HELPER to human drivers. Prevent collisions? Prevent you from going off the road if you fall asleep at the wheel? Sure. Control your destiny and your life? Hell, no. That's just stupid.

>>1099548
Nobody gives a fuck about something that follows a TRACK. What's next, you going to say:
>you trust elevators it's the same thing
It's basically the same argument. Apples and hand grenades. Not even close.

Again: None of you 'self driving car' people really understand what it is you're advocating. Either that or you've all been so thoroughly indoctrinated into believing that you're supposed to be controlled by someone else 24/7/365 that you're now too much of a KEK to even THINK about taking control of your own lives. If so then enjoy being CATTLE because that's about what you are.

>>1099551
Obviously someone gives a fuck. Because he fucking posted about it saying it doesn't exist for trains or buses and won't anytime soon even though it exists for both.

Yet again, you're so fucking retarded that you're defending objectively false claims that have been disproven by operational systems already in public use.

And you also too fucking retarded to understand how massively you moved the goalposts on yourself. Nobody except you was talking about self-driving cars without steering systems. The subject of the thread says right in the fucking title "self-driving cars", not driverless.

>>1099548
Thanks for correcting me. Are those completely autonomous though or are they simply controlled remotely, or at least monitored with the option of intervention by a human?

>>1099552
>Because he fucking posted about it saying it doesn't exist for trains or buses and won't anytime soon even though it exists for both.
I wasn't saying it wouldn't exist any time soon, it could exist now (or already does according to you). My point was that whilst it could exist as a truly driver-less system it would transfer responsibility away from the driver. The same would happen if cars were to become truly driver-less, the only way it would happen is if the manufacturer took responsibility for any damage it may cause.

>>1099569
They are completely autonomous, not remotely controlled. I trains would have some sort of monitoring system with an emergency kill switch which could also be automated.

>>1099569
There are already lots of cases where manufacturers are responsible for crashes and other malfunctions. That type of liability would not be new, merely expanded.

>>1099575
Neato. What country is this in?

>>1099576
For trains? I could imagine that, problems aren't that likely and many are probably down to driver error anyway, and those that aren't would probably also affect those with drivers (rail faults). However with cars accidents are going to much more frequent no matter how close to perfect the technology gets when you have so many outside factors, especially idiots driving other cars.

>>1099578
There are literally dozens of GoA 4 systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Grade_of_Automation_4_.28GoA4.29

>>1099524
There's nothing safe about driving cars. When it comes to safety, the barrier for autonomous vehicles is to be safer than a human driver. This barrier is already cleared, and cleared by a fucking mile.
You'd be stupid to entrust your life to human drivers.

I'd rather have a computer drive than the elderly.

>>1099591
To piggyback off of this, commercial aircraft are flown by computers for 90-95% of the time from takeoff to landing and are capable of doing 99-100% of the takeoff to landing cycle.

>>1099591
>This barrier is already cleared
The hell it is.

Under a limited number of conditions, yes. Probably safer for driving down a grade-separated highway in the California summer.

Definitely not yet safer for driving in a snowstorm in Minnesota, or on busy surface streets. Tesla Autopilot has no idea how to identify cyclists, for example.

>>1099592
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/crash-how-computers-are-setting-us-up-disaster

>>1099597
Neither does your average cager.

>>1099597
You are now openly denying the indisputable fact that over 90% of every flight you take is flown entirely by computers.

You are attempting to claim that a global reality for billions of people isn't actually real.

>>1099605
>>1099599
>>1099597
>>1099592
>>1099591
>>1099580
>>1099578
>>1099576
>>1099575
>>1099569
shut up and go out for a pedal damn it
you will feel better when you get back

>>1099512
Horseless Carriages Won't Happen. They won't happen. If you believe this, you're a hype-drone retard

No, there are no horseless carriages on the market today. No, nobody is actually going to make one. They are Jules Verne tech: nice to dream about, will not exist in our lifetime

Stop worry about them and chill. Also, Daimler and Benz will go out of business by 1889.

Ride on!

>it's "people cheer for government to waste even more money to satisfy drooling cager amoebas" episode

>>1099619
TY for reminding luddite NEETs how fucking idiotic it is to make definitive statements about technology like this.

The mediocrity in this thread is overwhelming

>>1099524
>it takes away choice
You will have exactly the same control over a self-driving car as you do a taxi. Many people take taxis.

>REAL 'AI'
You mean artificial consciousness? Why would you want that at all, never mind for driving? It needs to take in data, process it into a model of the world, navigate that model, and feed that back into controlling the car. Machines are far better than humans at everything but the processing, and have been for decades. And they're probably good enough at that now.
A car does not need to be as smart as a dog, or even a flea. It only needs to do a few things, And do them better than someone half awake paying very little attention.

So many fucking retards on 4chan. We will see completely autonomous vehicles in our lifetimes. You will subscribe to a car service instead of owning a car, then it will be like calling an uber, except there will be no driver and you're free to do work or whatever. The amount of accidents will go down drastically. It will be an improvement for everyone.

You guys are all fucking retards, screencap this post if you disagree and reread it back in 20 years.

My mom's prius's controls froze while she was driving. Thankgod she was going slow in a residential.

Michael hastings

Seth Rich

>>1099641
Good point about the flea.

Sometimes I take a step back and see cars as their own creatures: they appear as giant stupid animals, clumsily trying to navigate a world which makes only just enough room for their huge bodies--honking whenever a difficult situation is encountered. The driver has three main inputs in an automatic, a turn signal, and a switch to turn it on. The rest is for operator comfort.

Three analog inputs, and a digital one. That's all the control the giant creatures still require over their bodies while driving. It could be two in an electric car. A dog is way smarter than a driver needs to be, though in a unique way... sometimes I look at her and see an advanced computer designed solely to coax humans into sharing items from their food stash.

Could we just put the cars on rails though? Make it one analog input (acceleration) and one digital (turn switch). I don't care if they are still ridiculously inefficient; I just wish I could get a fair shake when walking/biking from a to b in the city. It shouldn't put me or anyone at high risk of death-

>tweede disabled

>>1099536
half-assed? Better than quarter-assed retards behind the wheel texting, drinking, dealing with screaming kids and having an aneurysm every time they get delayed by three fucking seconds

>>1099512
t. luddite

File: chicken-grinder.jpg (56KB, 640x320px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x320px

>>1099668
The most advanced neural networks today have approximately the level of processing power as a worm brain.

It's pretty sad that humans suck at driving more than worms, but I think if we made licensing a lot stricter and came down harder on reckless, distracted, and intoxicated driving, it would help a lot. I know two people IRL who have gotten DUIs and they are still allowed to drive. One of them also crashed into someone (not while drunk) and wasn't prosecuted despite causing serious injury, although she was sued. Even if I was in the dark about this, just knowing her extensive personality flaws I would never get in a car driven by her but she's allowed.

We literally have to rely on the tort system for justice because the criminal code treats driving offenses that cause bloodshed as though they were unavoidable, totally unforeseeable "accidents". Our road system is basically a meat grinder for human beings, powered by retards overdosing on propaganda about "personal freedom"

My hope is that AI will be embraced as as the obvious solution to human shortcomings. People who think their right to kill supercedes the public's right to safety are a cancer.

File: horses.png (36KB, 590x272px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 590x272px

>>1099512
They said the same thing about trains, cars, planes, rockets, and pretty much every other technology.
Self driving elevators is the closest example I think.

>>1099619
Humans can't survive higher speeds than a galloping horse.
Imagine, being crushed to death by the sheer acceleration of one of these so called "motors"? What a horrible death.
A steam engine moving itself around is against Nature's laws anyway.

>>1099726
I don't see the danger of personal autos as a human shortcoming. I think that frame of reference is sort of volatile in itself, but not in the way you describe it. People point fingers so quickly:
>Women can't drive
>Asians are terrible drivers
>I've spent my fair share of time behind the wheel
>etc

Imagine autos had inputs and sensor systems and infrastructure comparable to a fighter jet. Suddenly, the skill required to operate one is similar to that of a fighter pilot. Crashes might still happen, and each one would be thoroughly reviewed to avoid the same situation in the future. Most people would much rather take the train/bus/bike. A big advantage of AI is how well connected the computer is to the car.

>People who think their right to kill supercedes the public's right to safety are a cancer.
See also: US healthcare

I heard they can't even drive with bikes yet, hopefully the lawyers stop this garbage before it's tried to be forced mainstream

>>1099793
Hopefully you're killed by speeding bus.

>>1099726
>neural networks
>advanced
LOL! neural networks are hillbilly tier

Maybe thermal cameras should be added to the compliment of sensors for detecting meatbags.

You're right, we should ban internal combustion entirely. It is too dangerous. No individual should need to pilot a vehicle that has more than two horsepower.

>>1099831
Don't they already have that?

>>1099778
Nature's laws can't be broken, you stupid Luddite.

File: confused anime grill with interrogation punctuation 15.gif (177KB, 500x419px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 500x419px

Why are all of the self-driving proponents here so full of anger and rage? Will self-driving cars make cagers even worse people?

>>1099909
Denial of scientific and mathematical fact should be grounds for summary execution. Sounds like you just volunteered yourself.

File: 1397382112819.jpg (120KB, 528x292px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 528x292px

>>1099910

>>1099665
an improvement for everyone but the entire industries that rely on humans driving their vehicles.

remember, less humans employed means less humans spending money on AI-related services

>>1099910
>what is neuroplasticity
>what? you mean most intelligence isn't genetic? weird

well, you said it yourself. get the noose ready.

>>1099512
SpaceX is basically a privatized NASA which share some of their technology. If they went out of business then you might as well see the US government went out of business

>>1099915
other jobs will be created. humans want to live like kings. until we do there are enough jobs to go around.

should cars not have been invented because of all of the jobs they wiped out? should electricity not have been invented? check yourself my man

>>1099915
>he thinks money is anything but a way to game people into behaving like constructive members of society so they do not tank civilization before it reaches its final post-money form
damn daniel

>>1099665
>implying it wont just be 1000x easier to get everyone an oculus rift and have them go to work in the virtual office

>>1099915
ai is a fucking robot it doesn't need your money
lol dumbest ass post i've read all week

ITT: low abstract intelligence individuals in denial about the fact that real, conscious, self-improving-at-speeds-unimaginable AI is coming within a decade (maybe 30 years if we try to prevent it) and it's going to take over the world and eradicate or enslave humans

MUH AIIIIII

we've heard this story since the fucking 80s.

The hardware required for autonomous vehicles is pretty damn expensive at the moment, tens of thousands per vehicle. LIDAR being one of the more expensive components which Tesla chose to not use.

You won't see these vehicles on the road until some of these technologies are shrunk to chip scale and can be produced in massive volume for cheap. But it does mean eventually you'll have a phone with built in lidar that can take photos that are also 3d models.

>>1100062
>But it does mean eventually you'll have a phone with built in lidar that can take photos that are also 3d models.

see now that will be cool af.

File: gayspacecommies.jpg (120KB, 750x537px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 750x537px

>>1099973
this

>>1100062
Damn, with lidar, heatmapping, AI, and other tech that trickles down from autonomous driving cars, we'll be able to take photos of cute girls, have full 3D models with nudes and AI personalities, and then be able to VR fuck them using teledildonics while stuck in traffic on the way to the human disposal facility that will be built in every city. Sweet!

*clears throught*

sorry kid

unizps ai neural tnetwork

*appause

>>1100062
Those expenses make sense for shipping companies or other situations where drivers are paid to move stuff around. $40,000 for a truck conversion to self-driving pays itself off in like a year.

File: 461496148.jpg (748KB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 3000x2250px

Musk is putting hundreds of thousands to millions of autonomy capable cars on the road. They will gather massive amounts of data on driving. Allowing the creation of deep learn algorithms and car driving narrow ai.

>>1100062
Tesla is putting the necessary hardware on all cars. Even if you don't buy the feature. Because it pays for it self in real world driving data collection.

>>1099793
>hopefully the lawyers stop this

What was it like growing up with helicopter parents? I've always wondered how it feels to be in your mid 20s and still have the personal responsibility and decision-making ability of an infant

The Japanese should've kamikaze'd straight into San Francisco.

>>1099626
TY for reminding luddite NEETs how fucking idiotic it is to make definitive statements about technology like this.

Betamax, HD DVD, thin client PCs in the home, CueCat scanners, 3D TV, hydrogen powered cars are here to stay!

The mediocrity in this thread is overwhelming

>>1100267
>betamax
Refer to VHS
>HD DVD
Refer to Blu-ray
>thin client PCs
Refer to tablets
>cuecat
Refer to phone cameras
>3D tv
Refer to 4k
>hydrogen powered cars
Refer to electric cars

Now go kill youreself.

Sage goes in all fields.

>>1100286
>Saging a thread on first page

>>1100177
>Musk is putting hundreds of thousands to millions of autonomy capable cars on the road.
musk is a scam artist with a cult following created by a specialist pr firm

>if driverless cars were possible, the prototypes would work flawlessly and there would be no need to take safety measures during their testing
What a complete retard.

>>1100342
that has delivered 182,000 cars so far. most of which have autonomy hardware gathering data and sending it to Tesla to make better software.

>>1100342

FUCK YOU

>>1100532
>that has delivered 182,000 cars so far
which cost much much more than they're worth
and tesla still isn't profitable

>>1100587
in this day and age if you're profitable you're doing something wrong

File: Data-Mining.png (52KB, 368x262px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 368x262px

>>1100532
>gathering data and sending it to Tesla
>to make better software
Sure, we'll say that's what the datas for

>>1099605
Stupid people have a really difficult time understanding that smart people can do things that seem like magic to them. They literally cannot imagine how we could make a computer do things. They see a computer as a frustrating TV with a lot of buttons and can't even understand...

>>1100613
you're phone already generates all the data the government or others could want.

>>1099524
>Your DOG is smarter than a self-driving car, and I'd trust a dog more.
That's not how a dog license works, silly anon.

>>1100607
>in this day and age if you're profitable you're doing something wrong
and people wonder why our economy is fucked

>>1100684
>They see a computer as a frustrating TV with a lot of buttons and can't even understand...
im a dev ops guy for a fairly large company and i still see computers as frustrating tvs with a lot of buttons

File: snek.jpg (100KB, 780x928px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 780x928px

>>1099512
Trains and commercial planes basically operate automatically. I am sure supervising humans will stay for centuries but self driving is already here in a large scale

>an oxymoron, like safe sex

>>1100873
>or tactical nuke
>or adult male

>>1100871
>train
>keep your foot on the gas pedal and follow the tracks
>plane
>pretty much the same since all routes are pre-planned by air traffic controllers and the chances of hitting another vehicle are virtually 0%

you really can't be this stupid, can you?

>>1100876
Cars driving automatically and unconditionally obeying road signs will make sure the chances of hitting others will be around 0%. Just keep a supervising human in that can brake in emergencies. Also, private cars might not be so prevslent in the future when public transportation becomes ever more efficient and cheaper.

>>1100878
>Just keep a supervising human in that can brake in emergencies.
This is nonsense. A human will never be able to do this.
Human interference is for when the car stops because it's unsure of what to do (weird roadworks or something), and the human is needed to navigate the strange part of the road.

File: news_12_10.jpg (41KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 240x240px

>>1100874
>or adult male

I don't know jack about cars, or psychology, or AI. But I do know that this thread paints a very cliche picture of people saying a technology will never catch on but it eventually does. And also that it would be very luxurious to be able to play games or something while the car drives. Kind of like road trips when you're a kid and your parents do all the driving.

>>1099961
that's stupid reasoning. New jobs do not appear out of nowhere to replace the ones becoming obsolete.

>>1100909
kind of like public transport

rly makes u think

>>1100033
since the 50's actually. Which is IIRC when the whole deep learning theory was invented.

>>1100587
they make money on each car sold. they don't make money as a company because they are aggressively expanding the business. a business that is trying to vertically and horizontally integrate at the same time.

>>1101047
Aggressive capital reinvestment isn't counted as profit on the balance sheets. Profit is purely parasitical value being leeched off by unproductive people with their names on the right kind of paperwork.

>>1101050
ok Senator Sanders. Time to get off the internet and take a nap.

>>1099605
>comparing a flight to someone driving a car
Are you actually that dense? Also what you're saying is wrong, since there is AN ENTIRE CREW IN THE COCKPIT, whom take off, fly during extreme turbulence, and land the aircraft. Give one fucking example of a single commercial airline that employs such technology and I will yield. (Hint hint, none of them do) and they don't for a good reason, when faced with unknown or unpredictable events, a human, by far, outranks even the most advanced flight computers in being able to diagnose and deal with disaster. Your strawman comparison to self driving cars proves his point even more, as you're significantly, by an extremely wide margin, going to experience unpredictable or disastrous events while driving than in comparison to flying. Do you honestly, 100% believe that the "autopilot systems" are capable enough to account for a cyclist that is going 25mph in the perpendicular direction? Well when you hit him because the "AI" didn't account for it, I can with full certainty say that Google (whom probably will program this "AI" had a terms & conditions agreement that releases them from any and all accountability, and that the driver should "be as aware of the road as if they were driving", which no one who actually uses this system will be, as what would be the fucking point in having it? EVEN IF, these cars come out, they will be a fucking novelty for people once they begin to rack up accidents.

>>1101926
Holy fucking shit. Literally everything you said is completely irrelevant because of your own inbred illiteracy. Reread the post you responded to you dumb fucking nigger. Nowhere does it say planes or vehicles do not, cannot, and should not have controls for human intervention. Yet again, you're denying actual observed realities that occur literally thousands of times per day.

>>1101933
Maybe you should fucking what your responded to, Tesla already has an "autopilot system" and I can guarantee once it goes mainstream people will be getting in accidents more frequently than they used to. Mark my words you fucking sheep.

>>1099512
Well, i think they wont be a thing as long as there are manual cars. But as soon as they get production ready, politicians will make pressure so everyone buys a brand new self-driven car. Lobbyists will make sure they get enough money in the pockets of politicians to make it happen.
They will happen and your manually driven car gets extinct on public roads.
This is the future, accept it.
I dont like it either but how do you want to argue against safety?
Self-driven cars are less prune to error than humans, given the situation that ALL cars around them are self-driven and communicate with each other. (position, speed, direction etc.)
I dont want your old tired eyes with your manually driven car around, when my children are in the same traffic in a self-driven car. You are a threat to everyone else.
This WILL happen. We enthusiast are too few to do something against it and normies will eat everything up with enough marketing backing it.
Accept it. I will be sad too but you cant stop progress just because you liked the old ways. This is not an argument.

>>1099524
As a person who couldn't drive for years because of a disability I disagree with you

>>1102026
>accidents
cager go back to /o/

>>1102029
2/10 low effort