Self-driving Auto Utopia Collides With Reality

HAVING PHYSICAL KEYS IS NOT UNLAWFUL

...

Why is he changing what it means to drive.

Answer:
Change is the only thing that stays the same.

You didn't answer my question, you pedantic fucking cunt. Please kill yourself or actually grow a brain and learn how to converse, you subhuman.

If cars today can drive autonomously without these car to car communication, it won't regress when car to car communication finally happens

There's no reason why AI cars can't read the human signage and report a discrepency.

You can believe that road and signage discrepencies will be reported to the road authorities at the same speed that crimes get reported to the police. In this age of road cameras and permanent network connections, any variance of official speeds will get fixed urgently.

I predict the death rates will reduce after autonomous cars become super popular.

glad for you
The thing is that you don't see our perspective of the problem.
Our first problem here on Holla Forums isn't the feasibility of the said vehicle.
It's the freedom of controlling/owning it.
If hardware doesn't have the 4 freedom it's useless and a menace for future generation.
it's has simple has that.

Then stop buying cars that you're not allowed to control. Nobody is forcing you to buy them.

This isn't a question about me.
Everybody should own what they buy.

Tell that to John Deere tractor owners......

web.archive.org/web/20170323072305/https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/john-deere-tractor-hacks-ukrainian/

Self-stuff is the doom of mankind.

So stop buying John Deere tractors. Who is forcing farmers to buy John Deere tractors?

What happens when all tractor companies pull a John Deere's?

You can stop farming with tractors and go back to oxen and work horses. Otherwise, there will be a business opportunity for foreign tractor companies or even new tractor companies. I believe the free market will solve this specific hypothetical situation.

And now your pretentious arguments are laid to the ground.
Do you still find any case of cars manufactured without modern technologies being sold in foreign markets and bankrupting local competition? I guessed so.
Now, I'm not a Leftist, but the "Free Market" is a myth, kid, sorry to be the one telling you that.

>no (((license)))

maybe not immediatly. Definitely a few years after these become the near universal norm though. Companies dont want you to own any of your own shit, they want you renting everything out to them.

The free market cannot exist due to human nature. It's an idea no more idealistic than equality is.

This, Libertarians and Communists have ideas that differ totally from one another, but they're one and the same because their ideas are an unworkable "utopia".

Are you telling me that there is a different conclusion to refusing to buy all tractors which all contain DRM? I'm just saying what is the logical conclusion. If you refuse to buy those hypothetical tractors, you're always free to go back to how things were done in the past, nobody will stop you.

I don't understand your point. Who said anything about bankrupting local corporations?

I don't really care about a market that has zero government regulations. The kind of regulated market we have in the US is adequately free for my opinion. I consider the US to have a free market.

You can always choose to kill yourself at any point in time, that does not make it a valid option. A farmer without farm equipment is fucked, there's nothing they can do on their current path. Either they buy this shit or they have to completely reform their entire life with a random chance of success.

Then you're a retard who shouldn't be on Holla Forums. I bet you think microsoft are only known for the xbox and not all the shit they pulled in the 90s to destroy competition.

Basically, when Tractor companies start going the John Deere's way, they'll all go without exception.
But you speak as if people are informed buyers? It's obvious that all those Tractor owners didn't know about the software issues or even thought that it was something good in the beginning.

I disagree, there is always a way. People are doing this right now. There are people who call themselves farmers are currently succeeding in various farming niches without John Deere tractors.

Of course, I didn't realize the entry into Holla Forums is to be a recognized expert on free markets.

I didn't care about Microsoft because I didn't care about proprietary software. I rely on free software that everybody is free to use, tinker and share. By promoting only free software, I don't need to let any single proprietary software company have control over me or my software community.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in reading your user manual when you buy a machine. I believe in reading the terms and conditions of the software you use. I have no sympathy for those who are "too busy" to read fine print. I believe that you are allowed to buy a John Deere tractor, get aquainted with the fine print then return the tractor on the basis that it is inadequate for your requirements.

People have no agency, almost all are conformists that just do what they're said to do.
Anyone with some historical knowledge can see that.
So, enabling this behaviour is wishing your country death.

Then you do not understand anything. You don't know the damage MS did to free software.

The only damage I understand is that Microsoft asserts patents against free software projects. Can you educate me on others.

So you're telling me that the ethos on which America which was founded, you are free to determine your own future, is actually a wish to lead to the death of America?

If wonder if the 1% can pay so that where they live never shows up in the proles maps like government restricted areas. After all, you can't hang the aristocracy if you can't find them.

Or how you can't drive away from death squads if they simply hack the system.

Yes. The Founding Fathers were incredibly meticulous as to prevent this, but they failed nonetheless - they would actually direct the Country into a trap now.
This is some very shallow but still good read on the matter:
amerika.org/politics/conservatives-conserve-heritage-miscegenation-is-death/
These ideals come from the same veins as the European (((Enlightenment))) and the (((French Revolution))), movement in which the leading bourgeoisie and intellectual elite thought that all men were equal in capacities, no matter which, they also used their tenets to build up propaganda to rally the masses.

In short, yes.

what would happen when kids decide to spray paint the barcodes?

Cars will interpret the visual road signs and will correlate that data to their internal database of the road network.

Malicious car can share wrong data. Also a random transmitter which is not even a real car can do the same. What happens then?

Good. Autonomus transportation is some next-level loss of freedom bullshit.

...

they already crashed for the exact reasons everyone with a clue about software engineering predicted
possibly, it might not be hard to beat a bunch of drunk/distracted/incompetent drivers if you just look at broad numbers. but after that they will push the speeds and other risky shit (like you already said "free style lanes") as far as they can go and reach the current death rate, then driving a car will be exactly he same as now except even if you're not an idiot you get a high chance to crash anyway. autonomous cars will be just like trains and can be easily derailed by a 5 year old kid (they're fucking heuristic algos, these kind of things tend to break when you look at them funny, which already happened in the case of tesla. of course the media just ignores this and pretends they are general AI) or a 15 year old script kiddie from remote

cars were no longer in your countrol once they got ECU'd

This is the first sign that you're delusional. We've had effective autopilots in commercial aircraft for 70+ years now, and we still have a minimum of two dedicated pilots on every passenger flight, with no sign that that will change any time soon. This is because the regulatory agencies for commercial flight are smart enough to proceed carefully and ensure any proposed system has been properly engineered. Right now all of the automakers are trying to shit a self-driving car onto the road before the safety regulatory bodies can write standards that would provide meaningful protection for the public.

And there never will be one for any kind of safety-related communication (and collision avoidance is definitely safety-related.) It's a security nightmare waiting to happen.

And they will continue to be built for human eyes for the foreseeable future. If you have to OCR a street sign, you're already doing it wrong anyway.

Learning from the master, it seems.

I did. You choose not to accept it.

In Soviet America, software controls you.

Blocking human to human mail but allowing car to car mail seems just about right.

|
|>
|3
|

You will pay for your crimes.

You're on the way to jail.

this is what basically happens to any unfiltered signalling system, i.e. spam and denial of service turning into system hang up and malfunction.

...

software tester here you're full of shit

1. software problems (satisfice.com/blog/archives/426)
2. hardware problems (uh oh, tire blew out. Uh oh, the 'barcode scanner' lens is cracked)
3. nature problems (fallen trees, wet roads, wildlife)
4. Road quality (better hope it's all flat all the time, ever hit a deep puddle on the road?)
5. Pedestrians (sorry granma)
6. Pajeet will be coding it

'Problems will get easier, not harder' yeah

Not the guy you're replying to, so I don't know his opinion, but

>1. software problems (satisfice.com/blog/archives/426)
This is exactly what the thread is about, and is a problem that is being worked on
These already exist.
"Uh oh, spark plug's died." "Uh oh, tire blew out." "Uh oh, I fell asleep."
A car knows to stop when a tire blows or a critical issue occurs.
This is what the computer vision is for, retard.
This is what the computer vision is for, retard.
This is what the computer vision is for, retard.
No he will not, Pajeets do not have the technical ability, and self-driving cars will not be running a JVM.

You are, frankly, not well educated enough to have an opinion on this subject at a level above the pajeets you so enthusiastically deride

you could have said magic pixie dust and it means the same thing. Too many variables you sperg, or will it 'just work'

You don't know what it is that computers see.
Protip: computers see depth with infrared and radar, they don't interpret visual spectrum light

...

so it will shit itself in wet or foggy conditions, great.

You honestly believe humans can do better?

Self driving cars will never be as advanced as pic related.

>tfw no Trans-Am 850 T5-R speeding towards me in Super Hyper Pursuit Mode to pick me up while being shot at by MJ12 troops

I'm gonna derail the thread to say this really fucking triggers my autism. It's "as simple as", you fucking iliiterate.

What you say?

Let's be honest: technology is kinda bogus.
It promises too much and do a shit job, people hype it too much, only automated machines in factories, high precision stuff in controlled environments, are any good.
Self-driving is completely prone to disasters for huge factors, hell, remember when your phone random-rebooted? Or when a software update bug removed your WiFi? Or when wireless communications simply can't work properly through plaster? Imagine other similar conditions - rain, snow, snow covered roads, sandstorms, fog, underground - what if a certain car colour is too much reflexive and bug the sensors? What if heat-haze make the car go nuts?

There's everything prone to go wrong with those fuckers, Tesla's autopilot fail all the time and that's not even due to infrastructure, but to its own failures.
"Self-driving" is just a meme, remember in the 60s when they said we're going to have flying cars by now? Yeah.

Standing water on the road will reflect anything above it and fuck up the readings, and retroflective signs will fuck up the readings just by existing.

The problem is, thanks to the lowest common denominator of human drivers the bar is not very high for success. If people weren't such utter incompetent morons on the road we might actually have an argument against these things. I really don't think google will have that much trouble over the next decade or two perfecting these things to the point they can be normalized and then soon legislated to be mandatory.

It will end up being one of those things everyone accepts and then completely disregards the fact they're literally putting their lives in the hands of proprietary technology. Look at the difference between old and new cars in terms of the technology. Bloated is the best way to describe them but most people don't bat an eye when it's brought up even if they acknowledge how fucked we are now.

Don't worry I am sure the Park Rangers are more than happy to glue QR codes on any critter that can be a danger for vehicles.

Computer vision can easily detect reflections.

What about "human nature" stops a free market existing?
You can't resist voting for someone? No self control?

Tell that to this dead guy.
theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/13/tesla-autopilot-investigation-fatal-crash

It subverts it almost instantaneously for personal benefit.

The only prerequisite to a free market is a lack of taxation.

This is software that is currently in a developing state.

...

The fact is that 99% of the time driving is tedious shit, and the vast majority of it can be done with computer vision.
99% of the time I'm just staying within the lines and watching the sides of the roads for deer. Negotiating a four-way and looking in my blind spot before I change lanes, stopping and going in traffic. This sums up the vast majority.

Those who say that it's impossible, "too many variables", simply do not know what they're talking about. It's true that you're probably not going to be able to use self-driving technology in frozen, winding roads that change every day. But to say that the vast majority of boring as fuck commuting cannot be replaced with computer vision is just so wrong that it's just, on its face, a reaction that computers cannot do work that anyone with a pulse can do.

Like any other category, it requires the financial backing and time to do so. But to say that there's too many variables to do so in the first place is just wrong.

The problem with Tesla's system is that it's underdeveloped, and people get bored as fuck not having to do anything. So they're going to sit there and watch movies until the system says "oops, didn't see that fuckhead trucker making a U-turn on a highway, you take back control" and it's too late, therefore the driver gets his head shaved off.

This happens with humans, so it's not an argument against self-driving technology. The real argument there is that it's a system in development that takes humans out of the loop, while still requiring their input 25% of the time.

Just thinking about the things that infared could do, at night, I could make the argument that self driving technology will be much, much safer than any human. Good luck slowing down for a deer in a corn field when you don't know they're there.

...

...

Try your self-driving car shit in the 3rd world. Protip: it won't work. if you stop on a red light in some areas, niggers will plug your exhaust and mug you. In some routes and highways, niggers will put rubble on the road, so you have to either drive against traffic or on the shoulder to avoid getting robbed.

What would a pajeet-made self-driving car do about if niggers around the world start doing that, faggot?

These "utopia" guys (I see nothing utopian in loosing a freedom, but whatever) always neglect what could go wrong.

The third world, namely Africa, isn't the target market or even the target to solve these problems. They're not developed road systems, and niggers robbing you is outside of the scope of computer vision. There's these things called laws. In shitholes, there are no laws, so it's up to niggers to fix those problems before they get cars that magically drive from point A to point B.
Let alone maps or connectivity to use those maps.

I'm not saying self driving cars are a good thing, especially from a freedumb perspective, but I am saying that they're entirely possible on the road and highway systems found in the US, and other non-shitholes. They're also demonstratably safer.
As for vandalizing signs on highways, it wouldn't make sense to stop on a highway like that. There's actually only several places in the US where a part of the interstate is not controlled-access. Which means it's expected to be high speed. Beyond that, databases like open street map can be compiled, which marks all stop/traffic signals to cross-reference.

All this to say that there's not "too many variables." The bigger problem is getting people to actually want self-driving cars. They're going to be fucking bored, I assure you.

I meant "developing" nations. i.e. any country not belonging to Europe or North America (excepting Mexico), Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

no one will ever want them because most, if not all, will be as shitty, insecure, and have the same level of support, serviceability, and repairability as your typical cell phone or smart TV.

I don't think you understand that all retards eat up smart phones and smart TVs.
The main factor will be convincing people that essentially giving up agency in a car without a streeting wheel is good. And that they don't get bored out of their minds.
Who knows what will happen in a decade. Will insurance companies shape the market thanks to the safety benefits and essentially force the hand of people using beaters that don't have computer vision? Will the market in developed nations gradually trickle over to level 5 autonomy without insurance guiding the market and keep the steering wheel for the die hards? Time will tell.

You forgot to add the possibility of hacking public cars, like "taxis" or "buses" into dropping people into a shithole, or remote control or anything else.

You work on the basis that this will be a thing in the future, it will not, forget it.

No, the bigger problem is 'computer vision' is fallible. Don't try and gloss over like
It'll have trouble in rain and fog. What will people do in those conditions? Stay home? Auto drive at 3mph and still crash?
Metal tracks could work, if we're talking about changing the entire infrastructure.

Computer vision isn't just limited to cameras. There's also lidar and radar sensors that are coming down in price due to auto makers making big orders due to just this sort of thing.
Yeah, I slow down in fog too, dipshit. Because you can't fucking see. Radar would work well at low speeds for just these scenarios. Except with radar, you wouldn't be blind. There would be some semblance of vision, versus my human vision being totally blind.

Radar is just as susceptible to environmental issues and interference you halfwit. 'Computer Vision' is not a magic pill that will fix everything, like the one your mother should have taken

That depends on the wavelength.
Lidar would be the one that's horrible with pretty much everything: fog, whiteout, rain, etc.
The discussion was not whether it would fix everything, the discussion is whether it could be done. The discussion was bullshit about "too many variables."

For the overwhelming vast majority of scenarios, there's self-driving solutions that work now.

I don't know why you're angry, it's not like driving requires anything other than a pulse. With enough effort and money, any task like driving can be automated to a pretty decent extent.

Well, eyes that work. Blind people get fucked.

well no shit too many variables is an argument. It's why we don't have accurate weather forecasts more than a few days in advance, or valuable automated testing. You can't just handwave that away.

I'm not angry, we're having a perfectly candid discussion. You fucking tool.

We don't have "completely accurate" forecasting because it's a Monte Carlo problem. You don't know where the fucking hurricane will end up in five days in the Gulf of Mexico, you have great uncertainty, but you may have great certainty about it being sunny in the northeast, depending on how many forecasts you run.
The same problem set does not apply, in general, to self driving. You're not forecasting. You're reacting. I mean, it is true that there is some of what you'd call 'forecasting'. For example, a moving car at an intersection and whether it's safe. But that's really the same thing as Monte Carlo ensemble forecasts. You're not going to be running thousands of forecasts to see if the car veers to the left or the right. It's simply a body that's moving at an approximate speed within the intersection.

not really the same*

Then you get to the unexpected and the entire house of cards falls. People can account for fallen trees, missing signage, random flooding, loss of GPS signal, and other faults far better than a computer could. Besides, if people are relying on self-driving, their actual driving skills will atrophy.

Ability to fly a plane is far more rigorous than what average people have to go through to drive too, and so they'll be better able to keep calm and work out problems when the automatic systems fail.

Well yes, it absolutely does. You'd need to forecast foreign object position, in a lot of cases moving foreign object positions, from a moving object itself, unless you want the auto car to slow to a crawl if it's just reactionary. It would not be safe otherwise, and call me crazy, but my opposition to this is from a safety standpoint. Internal car software already fucks up and it's not nearly as sophisticated as what is needed for this. GPS software fucks up. If this infrastructure is government run you'd better believe they'll fuck up. I'm not kidding in that there's a damn good chance Pajeet will be coding this, and he might do an ok job, but unit testing isn't their strong suit so you'd better hope the regression testers are good because otherwise the passengers are the testers.

Mind you, I'd love to see how it works in a town first. I'm not AGAINST this technology I'm just afraid they'll fuck it up, and kill people.

Automated cars can account for fallen trees, missing signage, random flooding, loss of GPS signal even better than a human could. I would imagine that for any scenario that is extremely unlikely, the safe way to act is to pull over and stop.

The safest way to drive in the vast majority of emergency fast-reaction scenarios is to slow down and even pull over.

At the risk of defeating my own argument, it looks like object calculation IS further along than I thought: robotic.dlr.de/bcatch

Still it's taking 32 cores external to the largely stationary robot to catch two balls, but that'll only improve. I doubt quickly but that's the cynicism talking

Okay, now you're just making shit up. You have absolutely no grounds for that argument.

And what about the less common scenarios, where the only way to avoid danger is to veer in a specific direction or even speed up?
I really doubt that the people that would be making these things will have the ability to code in the fancy maneuvers necessary to get out of some scenarios.

Can you account for a fallen object 200 meters in front of you in the dark? Including trees? Lidar can.

Summer sure is in full swing

Can I see them well enough in advance with headlights? Yes. Can I do it in rain? Yes, and LIDAR sucks in those conditions.

It's an interesting topic of discussion.

Looks like it's also under very controlled conditions. That's not gonna fly with self-driving cars.

...

One day you'll read an article about how much bravery it took for a car company to get rid of it.

The problem is that the lowest common denominator for human driving is outnumbered by lots of much better drivers. A self-driving car that's as good as or better than the "average" human driver will be significantly worse than the typical human driver.

All of this means that the self-driving car has to be much, much better than the average human driver to be acceptable. A human who's actively driving, even if they're not paying attention, is much more likely to successfully recover the vehicle than a human who's sleeping while the car drives itself. If safety was the actual objective, everybody would be focusing on driver alerting/assistance technology and not on self-driving vehicles.

Using an external computing cluster to do that should mean that self-driving cars are at least a decade out. Remember, in any sane world, the vehicle has to carry 100% of the necessary computing power on-board. A $50,000 rack of servers, multiplied by five for environmental hardening and extended support, is not going to be viable in anything but the most expensive luxury cars, and only then as an option.

A tree counts as a big blockage in the road. If it's possible to go around safely by driving on the oncoming lane, then it will. Otherwise, it will go back to where it came from and try a different route.

Visual signage is a matter of complementing its internal database of the road network. A missing sign will simply mean that it will refer solely to its internal databse instead of having a visual confirmation about the sign.

Random flooding is just like the tree scenario. If there is no safe way to get past the flood, then the safe thing to do is either pull over or return where you came from.

As for the GPS signal, AI can deduce its location based on its last known GPS position and its travel distance and confirmed with machine vision of street signs.

Will it be during or after tons of civil action lawsuits for manslaughter and mass murder on behalf of self driving vehicles?

...

Drink a verification can

>Drink a verification can

It's going to happen because the aging boomers soon won't be able to drive. Too big of a market to ignore.

Regardless, Ford is absolutely shit-tier. Buy a Chevy or Dodge instead.

I'd prefer this to niggers driving, but I'd prefer there be no niggers to (((software))) driving.

Found the redneck.

I'd rather be a redneck than a filthy swine who drives a pussy truck where engines that break down at higher speeds/useage are a feature rather than a defect.

Let us be honest, Cars in America today are:
.
.
.
.
.
.

TBH eventually they wont make non-autonomous cars anymore, just like some brands don't make cars with manual

And countries like norway went fullretarded and banned all ICE car sales after 2020

That's just plain FUD.

1. There will always be an enthusiast and aftermarket for existing cars (but not necessarily new ones). I guarantee it for as long as there is a free market.
2. Norway will ban the sale of new ICE cars. I find no problem with that given the number of existing ICE cars that can be maintained 50 years into the future.
3. In 50 year's time, electric vehicles will have technology that will surpass anything that today's ICE can do.

Please, die in a fire. You're stupid without redemption.

Not an argument