Technology, Science and the Environment.

[yorkie1999]

Driver-less cars won't work, ever. Nor will replacing fossil fuel transport with electric, and neither will 3d printing areoplanes, but we're going to spend an awful lot of time, effort and money trying. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Aren't these cars supposed to have a type of radar to stop them hitting things? Wearing dark clothes at night should be irrelevant.

Yes, they do have, but sensors don't remove the laws of physics. It takes time to stop a moving object, if someone steps out in front of your vehicle without even braking distance you're going to hit it.

 

Humans have eyes for the same purpose but they still hit things too.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

 No, I don't want to see stuff like that.

 

I was just the comment about dark clothes. If these cars can't be used at night or when its raining they aren't ready for the road yet.

You can watch the video, you don't see the hit or the aftermath.

 

My comment about dark clothes was a personal observation about how people don't realise how much they put their life in danger everytime they go out. I drive quite a lot and I'm amazed at how few accidents I've seen given both the circumstances of drivers and other road users.

 

Driverless cars are safer than cars with drivers. Most accidents are caused by driver error.

 

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Driver-less cars won't work, ever. Nor will replacing fossil fuel transport with electric, and neither will 3d printing areoplanes, but we're going to spend an awful lot of time, effort and money trying. 

I hope you're joking because we will replace fossil fuels with electric vehicles and almost definitely within your lifetime and driver-less cars will work if given the opportunity. they'll also free up a lot of wasted time. I hate to think how much time I've spent behind the wheel of a car that could have been used so much more profitably.

 

Still I guess you are sceptical about human-less washing machines, human-less production lines and are equally sure that aeroplanes will never fly themselves. Do you think the earth is flat too? 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, FIF said:

Yes, they do have, but sensors don't remove the laws of physics. It takes time to stop a moving object, if someone steps out in front of your vehicle without even braking distance you're going to hit it.

 

Humans have eyes for the same purpose but they still hit things too.

 

 

 

But humans also have the capacity to anticipate events through experience and observation. For example, when I see a kid break loose from its parents grasp and run toward the road, or when I see a football on the road with a kid chasing it, I'm reacting to the potential future event before it becomes an emergency stop. I doubt that AI controlled vehicles are advanced to that degree.

[davieG]

Drinks bottles and can deposit return scheme proposed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43563164

 

I'm not convinced that this is the biggest problem more of cosmetic solution and needed because of the lazy couldn't give **** litter bugs.

 

It certainly wont impact on all the tiny bits of plastic that is surely the biggest danger to wildlife and humans via food consumption.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

Drinks bottles and can deposit return scheme proposed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43563164

 

I'm not convinced that this is the biggest problem more of cosmetic solution and needed because of the lazy couldn't give **** litter bugs.

 

It certainly wont impact on all the tiny bits of plastic that is surely the biggest danger to wildlife and humans via food consumption.

Its a start though.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

But humans also have the capacity to anticipate events through experience and observation. For example, when I see a kid break loose from its parents grasp and run toward the road, or when I see a football on the road with a kid chasing it, I'm reacting to the potential future event before it becomes an emergency stop. I doubt that AI controlled vehicles are advanced to that degree.

You react if you see them but you only have 2 eyes so not 360° vision, you can be distracted, you can have less than 20:20 eyesight, you could be impaired in some way, tired, thinking of an argument with the wife...

 

The car  can "see" every direction at the same time and it can react faster than you every time. The video shows what a camera in the car saw - not what the car sensed. I don't think you would have seen that person any earlier given the lighting. Do you think you'd have been able to miss the lady?

 

Edit - I agree with your comment about experience, that's one reason why young drivers have more accidents. AI can analyse far more experience than 1 man and can anticipate too. 

Edited 28 March 2018 by Guest

[Buce]

40 minutes ago, FIF said:

You react if you see them but you only have 2 eyes so not 360° vision, you can be distracted, you can have less than 20:20 eyesight, you could be impaired in some way, tired, thinking of an argument with the wife...

 

The car  can "see" every direction at the same time and it can react faster than you every time. The video shows what a camera in the car saw - not what the car sensed. I don't think you would have seen that person any earlier given the lighting. Do you think you'd have been able to miss the lady?

 

Edit - I agree with your comment about experience, that's one reason why young drivers have more accidents. AI can analyse far more experience than 1 man and can anticipate too. 

 

The difference is that I can react to potential events, rather than just events; I don't doubt AI will be able to do that one day but I doubt that it does now.

 

The difference between being pro-active and reactive is possibly greater than the difference in reaction times between human and AI.

[Kopfkino]

53 minutes ago, davieG said:

Drinks bottles and can deposit return scheme proposed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43563164

 

I'm not convinced that this is the biggest problem more of cosmetic solution and needed because of the lazy couldn't give **** litter bugs.

 

It certainly wont impact on all the tiny bits of plastic that is surely the biggest danger to wildlife and humans via food consumption.

 

I think its a good idea but what I'm a bit confused about is in The Times it says we recycle 74% of plastic drinks bottles and in a survey 74% said they'd return the bottles if they had to pay a deposit. So how much of a difference is it really gonna make?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The difference is that I can react to potential events, rather than just events; I don't doubt AI will be able to do that one day but I doubt that it does now.

 

The difference between being pro-active and reactive is possibly greater than the difference in reaction times between human and AI.

I believe that has been proven not to be the case and that driver-less cars have statisticaly backed facts that show they ARE safer. 

 

AI does predict potential events and weighs up the possibility. Computers have been beating grand masters at chess since the 80's.

 

This is the first death by a driver-less car (there'll be many more) and the chief of police clearly stated that having a driver wouldn't have made a difference

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think its a good idea but what I'm a bit confused about is in The Times it says we recycle 74% of plastic drinks bottles and in a survey 74% said they'd return the bottles if they had to pay a deposit. So how much of a difference is it really gonna make?

The other bottles could be returned by the people not buying them.

 

I remember as a lad we used to get money back from glass bottles and I earned plenty from finding bottles dumped by others and taking them back.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think its a good idea but what I'm a bit confused about is in The Times it says we recycle 74% of plastic drinks bottles and in a survey 74% said they'd return the bottles if they had to pay a deposit. So how much of a difference is it really gonna make?

Mine all go in my recycling bin so I'm going to paying extra and if I want a refund I've got to get in my car and find a bottle refunding bank. I'm obviously not going to do that so it will be like a gift.

[yorkie1999]

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The difference is that I can react to potential events, rather than just events; I don't doubt AI will be able to do that one day but I doubt that it does now.

 

The difference between being pro-active and reactive is possibly greater than the difference in reaction times between human and AI.

 

You're also to blame in the event of a crash as well, whereas a driver-less car isn't, which to me is the real issue, although as much as FIF wants to believe, driverless cars will never happen.

      

[Buce]

15 minutes ago, FIF said:

I believe that has been proven not to be the case and that driver-less cars have statisticaly backed facts that show they ARE safer. 

 

AI does predict potential events and weighs up the possibility. Computers have been beating grand masters at chess since the 80's.

 

This is the first death by a driver-less car (there'll be many more) and the chief of police clearly stated that having a driver wouldn't have made a difference

 

One death in how many road miles?

[Innovindil]

45 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

 

 

 

 

You're also to blame in the event of a crash as well, whereas a driver-less car isn't, which to me is the real issue, although as much as FIF wants to believe, driverless cars will never happen.

      

For someone of your age to say "that will never happen" after all the technological advances you've seen during your lifetime comes across as bonkers tbh. 

[Ronish Baxter]

China has always been focusing on building up its own strength and not paying any heed to the west is doing. They have always ensured that what they build remains secret to them only and that has simply helped the nation to become one of the superpowers.

[yorkie1999]

27 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

For someone of your age to say "that will never happen" after all the technological advances you've seen during your lifetime comes across as bonkers tbh. 

Not really, there is simply a limit where technology needs to take us and as much as people want to believe in a roger ramjet world, it's not going to happen in many life times. Yes there are driver-less cars at the moment, being tested, and there are electric cars, but not for the masses. Imagine being on the M25 with 300,000 other electric cars. Imagine replacing 40 million cars with electric vehicles, wheres the energy going to come from to power that lot being charged up every night and where's the copper going to come from for the 6" diameter wires we're going to need to lay down every street.  Imagine a couple of million self driving cars on the roads trying to interact with each other. Did you know that if you walk out in front of an av, it stops, because it has to, think how much fun the kids are going to have with that one. There's a million negatives and one positive, that being you can have a nap whilst you're being driven to where you want to go. The last man walked on the moon 45 years ago, now that was a pretty big advance in technology, but  i wonder why we stopped going.

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not really, there is simply a limit where technology needs to take us and as much as people want to believe in a roger ramjet world, it's not going to happen in many life times. Yes there are driver-less cars at the moment, being tested, and there are electric cars, but not for the masses. Imagine being on the M25 with 300,000 other electric cars. Imagine replacing 40 million cars with electric vehicles, wheres the energy going to come from to power that lot being charged up every night and where's the copper going to come from for the 6" diameter wires we're going to need to lay down every street.  Imagine a couple of million self driving cars on the roads trying to interact with each other. Did you know that if you walk out in front of an av, it stops, because it has to, think how much fun the kids are going to have with that one. There's a million negatives and one positive, that being you can have a nap whilst you're being driven to where you want to go. The last man walked on the moon 45 years ago, now that was a pretty big advance in technology, but  i wonder why we stopped going.

5

 

Because it was only ever about Cold War willy-waving.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

The difference is that I can react to potential events, rather than just events; I don't doubt AI will be able to do that one day but I doubt that it does now.

 

The difference between being pro-active and reactive is possibly greater than the difference in reaction times between human and AI.

 

This is the nub and the crux of it, tbh - it decides whether or not a self-driven car will be safer overall in the long term than one driven by a human. As Buce said, an AI cannot precognite in the same simple way a human can (yet) but IMO the difference in reaction time is already close to making up that shortfall if not already there, and that gap is only going to go in favour of AI as further developments are made.

 

I'll repeat what I said on the previous page tbh - people asking for perfection from AI-driven cars are being unreasonable with a hint of Luddite as they and everyone else knows that's not possible. All that's needed is that, over a long term and a good sample size, that they are significantly safer than a human driver would be, in terms of incidents caused and outcomes - something that personally I have little doubt will turn out to be the case.

 

Why the clamour? It's irrational.

 

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

 

 

 

 

You're also to blame in the event of a crash as well, whereas a driver-less car isn't, which to me is the real issue, although as much as FIF wants to believe, driverless cars will never happen.

      

I don't see how appropriating responsibility for crashes is such a big roadblock (hur hur) to the arrival of driverless cars. It's not like there aren't ambiguous incidents involving cars driven by humans right now.

10 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not really, there is simply a limit where technology needs to take us and as much as people want to believe in a roger ramjet world, it's not going to happen in many life times. Yes there are driver-less cars at the moment, being tested, and there are electric cars, but not for the masses. Imagine being on the M25 with 300,000 other electric cars. Imagine replacing 40 million cars with electric vehicles, wheres the energy going to come from to power that lot being charged up every night and where's the copper going to come from for the 6" diameter wires we're going to need to lay down every street.  Imagine a couple of million self driving cars on the roads trying to interact with each other. Did you know that if you walk out in front of an av, it stops, because it has to, think how much fun the kids are going to have with that one. There's a million negatives and one positive, that being you can have a nap whilst you're being driven to where you want to go. The last man walked on the moon 45 years ago, now that was a pretty big advance in technology, but  i wonder why we stopped going.

A vastly increased safety factor would outweigh all of those negatives by itself.

 

While I see your point about tech only really coming about when humans are ready for it, but then it wasn't exactly predictable 25 years ago that almost everyone would be carrying around their own pretty powerful microcomputer and instant communication device all together in their pocket, either.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to write this one off.

 

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Because it was only ever about Cold War willy-waving.

And if that isn't the most devastating indictment about how humans are (most often) twats, I'm not sure what is.

[Webbo]

What would be the point of going to the moon again? We've proven we can do it, there's nothing up there that we need, it'd just be a waste of money.

[yorkie1999]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What would be the point of going to the moon again? We've proven we can do it, there's nothing up there that we need, it'd just be a waste of money.

Cheese, fvkin tons of the stuff

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What would be the point of going to the moon again? We've proven we can do it, there's nothing up there that we need, it'd just be a waste of money.

While I'd agree going onto Mars straight up would be better, I can think of far more significant wastes of money happening right now.

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not really, there is simply a limit where technology needs to take us and as much as people want to believe in a roger ramjet world, it's not going to happen in many life times. Yes there are driver-less cars at the moment, being tested, and there are electric cars, but not for the masses. Imagine being on the M25 with 300,000 other electric cars. Imagine replacing 40 million cars with electric vehicles, wheres the energy going to come from to power that lot being charged up every night and where's the copper going to come from for the 6" diameter wires we're going to need to lay down every street.  Imagine a couple of million self driving cars on the roads trying to interact with each other. Did you know that if you walk out in front of an av, it stops, because it has to, think how much fun the kids are going to have with that one. There's a million negatives and one positive, that being you can have a nap whilst you're being driven to where you want to go. The last man walked on the moon 45 years ago, now that was a pretty big advance in technology, but  i wonder why we stopped going.

So we've gone from it never happening to it taking many lifetimes. Progress. 

 

You sound exactly like the dinosaurs that said the telephone would never be viable. 

[yorkie1999]

Just now, Innovindil said:

So we've gone from it never happening to it taking many lifetimes. Progress. 

 

You sound exactly like the dinosaurs that said the telephone would never be viable. 

You sound like you've never had the opportunity to take the piss out of anyone before. 

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You sound like you've never had the opportunity to take the piss out of anyone before. 

The internet has been around for a while.