The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep.
Seriously. Blue screen of death is not at all incomparable to the person who literally falls asleep at the wheel. It happens.
Yeah, actually it is entirely incomparable. A person who literally falls asleep at the wheel is comparable to a computer randomly going into sleep-mode. Blue screen of death is basically a seizure. The consequences are somewhat different, with the latter being substantially less predictable and a lot more sudden, and a hell of a lot less recoverable. And really people driving when they know they shouldn't aren't any more of an argument in favor of robot-cars than people operating their robot-cars with bad brakes and under-inflated tires or faulty sensors that they haven't gotten around to replacing are an argument against them.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
Yes and only places that various state transit departments felt were important enough to spend the money embedding sensors, and only if they're all connected to eachother so that none ever move without all the others knowing in advance, and no glitches ever happen ever. Because computers never crash, right?
Considering that most airplane flights are now handled entirely by computer, it's not implausible to believe we'd put faith in the system.
Substantiate this claim, as last I checked about half a dozen people are involved in moving a commercial flight from one airport to the next. Two pilots, air-traffic controllers at both ends and so forth.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
It is easier and cheaper for a computer to effectively control electric motors than it is for them to control a hydraulic pump system, yes.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
It is easier and cheaper for a computer to effectively control electric motors than it is for them to control a hydraulic pump system, yes.
Which has what to do with anything? Ignoring the part about how computers have been controlling hydraulic pumps in numerous applications for decades.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
It is easier and cheaper for a computer to effectively control electric motors than it is for them to control a hydraulic pump system, yes.
Which has what to do with anything? Ignoring the part about how computers have been controlling hydraulic pumps in numerous applications for decades.
Making it easier for a computer to control a car makes it easier for that computer to control the car.
And replace it with the entire problem of improperly maintained sensors and control-systems.
Definitely true. However, the biggest problem in my mind is that literally everyone on the road is going to have to own one of these robocars, since they will presumably drive both at a speed and with a skill that no human being could hope to compete with. It's something they wouldn't be able to release until it was rendered functionally flawless. It's the sort of technology I'm not sure if I expect to see in my lifetime.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
It is easier and cheaper for a computer to effectively control electric motors than it is for them to control a hydraulic pump system, yes.
Which has what to do with anything? Ignoring the part about how computers have been controlling hydraulic pumps in numerous applications for decades.
Making it easier for a computer to control a car makes it easier for that computer to control the car.
So your argument is "since we can make remote-controlled cars we can easily make cars that can drive themselves". I'm beginning to suspect that you've never driven anything before.
And replace it with the entire problem of improperly maintained sensors and control-systems.
Definitely true. However, the biggest problem in my mind is that literally everyone on the road is going to have to own one of these robocars, since they will presumably drive both at a speed and with a skill that no human being could hope to compete with. It's something they wouldn't be able to release until it was rendered functionally flawless. It's the sort of technology I'm not sure if I expect to see in my lifetime.
So we're not seeing this until after Skynet determines that humans are unnecessary anyway?
And replace it with the entire problem of improperly maintained sensors and control-systems.
Definitely true. However, the biggest problem in my mind is that literally everyone on the road is going to have to own one of these robocars, since they will presumably drive both at a speed and with a skill that no human being could hope to compete with. It's something they wouldn't be able to release until it was rendered functionally flawless. It's the sort of technology I'm not sure if I expect to see in my lifetime.
Cars don't generally last that long before going into the scrap heap/a collector's showroom. Yes, self driving cars are decades off and it'll take several more decades to get it to the point where they can be less of a novelty and more of a standard. That just means that they eventually become more and more able to take advantage of their increasing presence as time progresses.
Though having robo-cars opens up the unintended consequence can of worms that makes you ask if people would actually own their own cars at that point. It'd be infinitely more cost effective to have fleets of taxi's that can show up at your beck and call within minutes. For work or school or other consistent activities just schedule one to be at your doorstep when you want to leave. &c.
Considering that most airplane flights are now handled entirely by computer, it's not implausible to believe we'd put faith in the system.
Substantiate this claim, as last I checked about half a dozen people are involved in moving a commercial flight from one airport to the next. Two pilots, air-traffic controllers at both ends and so forth.
Edit: Also you don't tend to have things like deer and kids running out onto the clouds in front of airplanes randomly.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
It is easier and cheaper for a computer to effectively control electric motors than it is for them to control a hydraulic pump system, yes.
Which has what to do with anything? Ignoring the part about how computers have been controlling hydraulic pumps in numerous applications for decades.
Making it easier for a computer to control a car makes it easier for that computer to control the car.
So your argument is "since we can make remote-controlled cars we can easily make cars that can drive themselves".
So we're not seeing this until after Skynet determines that humans are unnecessary anyway?
If it's something that auto companies are actually interested in and they spend a few decades developing and perfecting the technology I'm sure they could eventually get it down to the point that the margin of error was negligible, but of course there's always going to be errors and thus accidents will take place - although presumably at a much lower rate than human-operated cars.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
I think what he's getting at is that electrical systems have no physical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels of the car, it's "drive by wire" with no physical backup in the event of the PAS system failing. I think electronically controlled throttles with no physical linkage are already present in some production cars, but I'm not certain. They're definitely pretty common in racing. I don't think anyone has done brakes yet, but I know that such a system would be illegal in the UK.
Again, this is something that's already common in the aviation industry.
So your argument is "since we can make remote-controlled cars we can easily make cars that can drive themselves".
No.
Then your argument is something other than the content of your posts. Or you're confusing ability to have a computer control a part with ability to have a computer control itself.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
I think what he's getting at is that electrical systems have no physical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels of the car, it's "drive by wire" with no physical backup in the event of the PAS system failing. I think electronically controlled throttles with no physical linkage are already present in some production cars, but I'm not certain. They're definitely pretty common in racing. I don't think anyone has done brakes yet, but I know that such a system would be illegal in the UK.
Again, this is something that's already common in the aviation industry.
Yes, but not quite as common as pilots. Those systems don't have the capacity to make decisions.
VC you really can't conceive of a way for driving to be done better than it is by human beings?
Human beings are awful at driving.
And like, your argument against there ever possibly being an automated system is "we don't have one" with a bit of "yeah but how can you trust a machine?".
So your argument is "since we can make remote-controlled cars we can easily make cars that can drive themselves".
No.
Then your argument is something other than the content of your posts. Or you're confusing ability to have a computer control a part with ability to have a computer control itself.
Or you're reading what you want into my posts. Whichever.
Screw robot cars. I like my cars as simple as possible. Manual transmission, power nothing. The only thing I'll exempt from this is a CD player.
Maybe I'm just dystopian about all the tools that keep being added to cars, reducing my feel of control of the vehicle and contact with the road, but thats the way I like it.
Presumably the function of robocars is to a)take the responsibility of driving out of the hands of the driver and b)make driving much safer and reduce the chance of accidents through human error. While the first is obviously a long way off, the latter could probably be done relatively easily through the development of new building materials. If they invested in making superstrong vehicles that could easily withstand most collisions most of the real reason for robocars would be gone, and the comfort/personal attention shit could take care of itself in due time.
Of course these materials would take forever to develop and even longer before they were widely affordable, but presumably not as long as it takes to develop a near-perfect vehicular AI.
So we're not seeing this until after Skynet determines that humans are unnecessary anyway?
If it's something that auto companies are actually interested in and they spend a few decades developing and perfecting the technology I'm sure they could eventually get it down to the point that the margin of error was negligible, but of course there's always going to be errors and thus accidents will take place - although presumably at a much lower rate than human-operated cars.
And since we have cars that are able to parallel park themselves today, it seems like all the different steps for a robotically controlled car to exist are progressing towards it.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
I think what he's getting at is that electrical systems have no physical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels of the car, it's "drive by wire" with no physical backup in the event of the PAS system failing. I think electronically controlled throttles with no physical linkage are already present in some production cars, but I'm not certain. They're definitely pretty common in racing. I don't think anyone has done brakes yet, but I know that such a system would be illegal in the UK.
Again, this is something that's already common in the aviation industry.
Yes, but not quite as common as pilots. Those systems don't have the capacity to make decisions.
You do realize there are still going to be people in the car, right?
Screw robot cars. I like my cars as simple as possible. Manual transmission, power nothing. The only thing I'll exempt from this is a CD player.
Maybe I'm just dystopian about all the tools that keep being added to cars, reducing my feel of control of the vehicle and contact with the road, but thats the way I like it.
I used to think this way, but I've come to distinguish driving for transport and driving for fun. I'd be happy enough to have a robo-car to waft me about provided there was still facility to run something rear-drive with no driver aids when the feeling took me.
Alternatively, hit the track and rent one of their cars.
Presumably the function of robocars is to a)take the responsibility of driving out of the hands of the driver and b)make driving much safer and reduce the chance of accidents through human error. While the first is obviously a long way off, the latter could probably be done relatively easily through the development of new building materials. If they invested in making superstrong vehicles that could easily withstand most collisions most of the real reason for robocars would be gone, and the comfort/personal attention shit could take care of itself in due time.
Of course these materials would take forever to develop and even longer before they were widely affordable, but presumably not as long as it takes to develop a near-perfect vehicular AI.
It's also for the simple desire to not have to pay attention to the road in order to get from point A to point B. Same as automatic transmission over manual even though manual tends to get slightly better mileage. You don't have to pay as much attention and people are willing to pay for that. People pay out their ass for chauffeurs (unless your Tom Daschle and it's free) so it's obviously something with a draw to it.
VC you really can't conceive of a way for driving to be done better than it is by human beings?
Human beings are awful at driving.
And like, your argument against there ever possibly being an automated system is "we don't have one" with a bit of "yeah but how can you trust a machine?".
Admit it, you're Will Smith.
Irresponsible, poorly trained human beings are awful at driving, yes. Humans who don't meet those qualifications can drive just fine, however. And part of my argument is that you need actually intelligent computers, not like videogame AI (which incidentally crashes cars all the damned time), actual capacity for thought, reason and decision-making. The other part is that assuming that part comes free with the car, the support systems necessary for it to function adequately will price cars right out of reach of the vast majority of people who need cars to get to work. Since they aren't able to share the road with human drivers without increasing the rate of accidents, that's a problem.
In contrast people can't crash in the way that an OS does without either drugs or epilepsy.
Or lack of sleep. There were a few times when I probably shouldn't have been driving home from studio. And robotic parking is already available for something like an extra grand on certain cars. Even less if they're the higher end models and so have all the sensors built in already. Every new car is going to have electric power steering rather than hydraulic in the next few years. Having a car that can drive itself isn't that impossible.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
I think what he's getting at is that electrical systems have no physical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels of the car, it's "drive by wire" with no physical backup in the event of the PAS system failing. I think electronically controlled throttles with no physical linkage are already present in some production cars, but I'm not certain. They're definitely pretty common in racing. I don't think anyone has done brakes yet, but I know that such a system would be illegal in the UK.
Again, this is something that's already common in the aviation industry.
Yes, but not quite as common as pilots. Those systems don't have the capacity to make decisions.
You do realize there are still going to be people in the car, right?
Right, people who aren't driving and can't drive it.
I don't really see how pleasure driving and automated driving can coexist, though, unless pleasure driving is only done in designated areas. It may be an unfortunate consequence of the technology.
Also, it would be much more difficult for feasible offroad driving to be automated. Some of the digs I've been on required my jeep to go in some pretty weird places - farmer's fields, woods with logging trails, stuff like that - which will require a much more advanced AI than just driving through interstate/downtown. So there's probably going to be options for a manual override, at least on certain kinds of vehicles.
So we're not seeing this until after Skynet determines that humans are unnecessary anyway?
If it's something that auto companies are actually interested in and they spend a few decades developing and perfecting the technology I'm sure they could eventually get it down to the point that the margin of error was negligible, but of course there's always going to be errors and thus accidents will take place - although presumably at a much lower rate than human-operated cars.
And since we have cars that are able to parallel park themselves today, it seems like all the different steps for a robotically controlled car to exist are progressing towards it.
Yes, but not quite as common as pilots. Those systems don't have the capacity to make decisions.
The point was more about systems that the vehicle depends on, which if they failed will leave that vehicle uncontrollable, pilot or no pilot.
Additionally, plenty of aircraft systems have the ability to make decisions. There's no reason why a modern aircraft couldn't take off, navigate and land without there even being a pilot on board.
If you've taken a flight you've travelled in a vehicle that's controlled by a computer.
VC you really can't conceive of a way for driving to be done better than it is by human beings?
Human beings are awful at driving.
And like, your argument against there ever possibly being an automated system is "we don't have one" with a bit of "yeah but how can you trust a machine?".
Admit it, you're Will Smith.
Irresponsible, poorly trained human beings are awful at driving, yes. Humans who don't meet those qualifications can drive just fine, however. And part of my argument is that you need actually intelligent computers, not like videogame AI (which incidentally crashes cars all the damned time), actual capacity for thought, reason and decision-making. The other part is that assuming that part comes free with the car, the support systems necessary for it to function adequately will price cars right out of reach of the vast majority of people who need cars to get to work. Since they aren't able to share the road with human drivers without increasing the rate of accidents, that's a problem.
You don't need to create sentient mechanical beings to create effective expert systems.
All of the complaints you have are either "it's too expensive(right now) it wouldn't work(right now) and it's not as effective as humans(right now) and there isn't an easy way to transition(right now)". All valid complaints, but also valid complaints of every other piece of new technology. In X years, maybe they won't be.
Yes, but not quite as common as pilots. Those systems don't have the capacity to make decisions.
The point was more about systems that the vehicle depends on, which if they failed will leave that vehicle uncontrollable, pilot or no pilot.
Additionally, plenty of aircraft systems have the ability to make decisions. There's no reason why a modern aircraft couldn't take off, navigate and land without there even being a pilot on board.
If you've taken a flight you've travelled in a vehicle that's controlled by a computer.
Except when stuff happens. By stuff I mean basically anything at all. Autopilot isn't magic, it's just cruise control.
VC you really can't conceive of a way for driving to be done better than it is by human beings?
Human beings are awful at driving.
And like, your argument against there ever possibly being an automated system is "we don't have one" with a bit of "yeah but how can you trust a machine?".
Admit it, you're Will Smith.
Irresponsible, poorly trained human beings are awful at driving, yes. Humans who don't meet those qualifications can drive just fine, however. And part of my argument is that you need actually intelligent computers, not like videogame AI (which incidentally crashes cars all the damned time), actual capacity for thought, reason and decision-making. The other part is that assuming that part comes free with the car, the support systems necessary for it to function adequately will price cars right out of reach of the vast majority of people who need cars to get to work. Since they aren't able to share the road with human drivers without increasing the rate of accidents, that's a problem.
You don't need to create sentient mechanical beings to create effective expert systems.
All of the complaints you have are either "it's too expensive(right now) it wouldn't work(right now) and it's not as effective as humans(right now) and there isn't an easy way to transition(right now)". All valid complaints, but also valid complaints of every other piece of new technology. In X years, maybe they won't be.
Who was trying to say robocars are a good idea with existing technology?
Besides moniker? Whoever else was trying to deny the existence of the numerous problems that would have to be solved before the idea is worth taking seriously.
Who was trying to say robocars are a good idea with existing technology?
Besides moniker? Whoever else was trying to deny the existence of the numerous problems that would have to be solved before the idea is worth taking seriously.
And replace it with the entire problem of improperly maintained sensors and control-systems.
Definitely true. However, the biggest problem in my mind is that literally everyone on the road is going to have to own one of these robocars, since they will presumably drive both at a speed and with a skill that no human being could hope to compete with. It's something they wouldn't be able to release until it was rendered functionally flawless. It's the sort of technology I'm not sure if I expect to see in my lifetime.
Cars don't generally last that long before going into the scrap heap/a collector's showroom. Yes, self driving cars are decades off and it'll take several more decades to get it to the point where they can be less of a novelty and more of a standard. That just means that they eventually become more and more able to take advantage of their increasing presence as time progresses.
Though having robo-cars opens up the unintended consequence can of worms that makes you ask if people would actually own their own cars at that point. It'd be infinitely more cost effective to have fleets of taxi's that can show up at your beck and call within minutes. For work or school or other consistent activities just schedule one to be at your doorstep when you want to leave. &c.
Posts
Yeah, actually it is entirely incomparable. A person who literally falls asleep at the wheel is comparable to a computer randomly going into sleep-mode. Blue screen of death is basically a seizure. The consequences are somewhat different, with the latter being substantially less predictable and a lot more sudden, and a hell of a lot less recoverable. And really people driving when they know they shouldn't aren't any more of an argument in favor of robot-cars than people operating their robot-cars with bad brakes and under-inflated tires or faulty sensors that they haven't gotten around to replacing are an argument against them.
I don't follow how that last analogy is supposed to make any sense. Because we can replace a hydraulic pump with an electric motor we can make machines that can think?
Substantiate this claim, as last I checked about half a dozen people are involved in moving a commercial flight from one airport to the next. Two pilots, air-traffic controllers at both ends and so forth.
It is easier and cheaper for a computer to effectively control electric motors than it is for them to control a hydraulic pump system, yes.
And replace it with the entire problem of improperly maintained sensors and control-systems.
Which has what to do with anything? Ignoring the part about how computers have been controlling hydraulic pumps in numerous applications for decades.
Making it easier for a computer to control a car makes it easier for that computer to control the car.
So your argument is "since we can make remote-controlled cars we can easily make cars that can drive themselves". I'm beginning to suspect that you've never driven anything before.
So we're not seeing this until after Skynet determines that humans are unnecessary anyway?
Cars don't generally last that long before going into the scrap heap/a collector's showroom. Yes, self driving cars are decades off and it'll take several more decades to get it to the point where they can be less of a novelty and more of a standard. That just means that they eventually become more and more able to take advantage of their increasing presence as time progresses.
Though having robo-cars opens up the unintended consequence can of worms that makes you ask if people would actually own their own cars at that point. It'd be infinitely more cost effective to have fleets of taxi's that can show up at your beck and call within minutes. For work or school or other consistent activities just schedule one to be at your doorstep when you want to leave. &c.
Edit: Also you don't tend to have things like deer and kids running out onto the clouds in front of airplanes randomly.
I think what he's getting at is that electrical systems have no physical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels of the car, it's "drive by wire" with no physical backup in the event of the PAS system failing. I think electronically controlled throttles with no physical linkage are already present in some production cars, but I'm not certain. They're definitely pretty common in racing. I don't think anyone has done brakes yet, but I know that such a system would be illegal in the UK.
Again, this is something that's already common in the aviation industry.
Then your argument is something other than the content of your posts. Or you're confusing ability to have a computer control a part with ability to have a computer control itself.
Yes, but not quite as common as pilots. Those systems don't have the capacity to make decisions.
Human beings are awful at driving.
And like, your argument against there ever possibly being an automated system is "we don't have one" with a bit of "yeah but how can you trust a machine?".
Admit it, you're Will Smith.
Or you're reading what you want into my posts. Whichever.
Maybe I'm just dystopian about all the tools that keep being added to cars, reducing my feel of control of the vehicle and contact with the road, but thats the way I like it.
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
Of course these materials would take forever to develop and even longer before they were widely affordable, but presumably not as long as it takes to develop a near-perfect vehicular AI.
And since we have cars that are able to parallel park themselves today, it seems like all the different steps for a robotically controlled car to exist are progressing towards it.
You do realize there are still going to be people in the car, right?
I used to think this way, but I've come to distinguish driving for transport and driving for fun. I'd be happy enough to have a robo-car to waft me about provided there was still facility to run something rear-drive with no driver aids when the feeling took me.
Alternatively, hit the track and rent one of their cars.
It's also for the simple desire to not have to pay attention to the road in order to get from point A to point B. Same as automatic transmission over manual even though manual tends to get slightly better mileage. You don't have to pay as much attention and people are willing to pay for that. People pay out their ass for chauffeurs (unless your Tom Daschle and it's free) so it's obviously something with a draw to it.
Irresponsible, poorly trained human beings are awful at driving, yes. Humans who don't meet those qualifications can drive just fine, however. And part of my argument is that you need actually intelligent computers, not like videogame AI (which incidentally crashes cars all the damned time), actual capacity for thought, reason and decision-making. The other part is that assuming that part comes free with the car, the support systems necessary for it to function adequately will price cars right out of reach of the vast majority of people who need cars to get to work. Since they aren't able to share the road with human drivers without increasing the rate of accidents, that's a problem.
Right, people who aren't driving and can't drive it.
Also, it would be much more difficult for feasible offroad driving to be automated. Some of the digs I've been on required my jeep to go in some pretty weird places - farmer's fields, woods with logging trails, stuff like that - which will require a much more advanced AI than just driving through interstate/downtown. So there's probably going to be options for a manual override, at least on certain kinds of vehicles.
Sure, if you have no idea what those steps are.
The point was more about systems that the vehicle depends on, which if they failed will leave that vehicle uncontrollable, pilot or no pilot.
Additionally, plenty of aircraft systems have the ability to make decisions. There's no reason why a modern aircraft couldn't take off, navigate and land without there even being a pilot on board.
If you've taken a flight you've travelled in a vehicle that's controlled by a computer.
You don't need to create sentient mechanical beings to create effective expert systems.
All of the complaints you have are either "it's too expensive(right now) it wouldn't work(right now) and it's not as effective as humans(right now) and there isn't an easy way to transition(right now)". All valid complaints, but also valid complaints of every other piece of new technology. In X years, maybe they won't be.
Except when stuff happens. By stuff I mean basically anything at all. Autopilot isn't magic, it's just cruise control.
Then in X years maybe it won't be a dumb idea.
VC that's kind of silly.
I'm not kidding about the T line though, I'll take existing automation technology over the drunken hoboes that currently run those trains.
Besides moniker? Whoever else was trying to deny the existence of the numerous problems that would have to be solved before the idea is worth taking seriously.
Well sure, those things are on rails.
You sure have me pegged.