driverless cars

Talk about things that are not necessarily related to music or the guitar.
Luis_Br
Posts: 2376
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:50 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: driverless cars

Post by Luis_Br » Thu May 09, 2019 6:05 pm

On the air there are less events, but one event is much more dangerous, planes still fall by big turbulences. During landing it is more complicated. Maybe the reason pilot is still there.
I think the unpredictable events on the road are unpredictable to human driver too, but solution to the car is easier, generally a simple quick brake from everybody solves the problem. An airplane cannot brake and stand still.
Maybe I am missing something, car is not my speciality, but I don't see anytihing good cameras and sensors all around cannot see before a human driver. Technology can even see in the dark. The problem is more the cost of implementing all the necessary stuff.
On the predictability, the only problem I see is to predict what other humans are doing, the major cause of accidents by very far. I think that if all cars were autonomous, it would be easy, and accidents would decrease to very few. Problem is that if someone throw himself suddenly in front of a car, autonomous car will always be guilty for not braking fast enough, while a human driver can make a human mistake and kill each other.
A quick search over the internet brings NHTSA 2008 survey where 93% of accidents are caused by human errors. An older US study from 2001 said 99% of studied accidents where caused by "human behavior". Human drivers can run faster the road allows, can cross red signals, drive while writing on the cellphone, drive sleepy, they only need to predict if the cops are nearby.

Andrew Pohlman
Posts: 1506
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: driverless cars

Post by Andrew Pohlman » Thu May 09, 2019 9:38 pm

Luis_Br wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:05 pm
On the air there are less events, but one event is much more dangerous, planes still fall by big turbulences. During landing it is more complicated. Maybe the reason pilot is still there.
I think the unpredictable events on the road are unpredictable to human driver too, but solution to the car is easier, generally a simple quick brake from everybody solves the problem. An airplane cannot brake and stand still.
Maybe I am missing something, car is not my speciality, but I don't see anytihing good cameras and sensors all around cannot see before a human driver. Technology can even see in the dark. The problem is more the cost of implementing all the necessary stuff.
On the predictability, the only problem I see is to predict what other humans are doing, the major cause of accidents by very far. I think that if all cars were autonomous, it would be easy, and accidents would decrease to very few. Problem is that if someone throw himself suddenly in front of a car, autonomous car will always be guilty for not braking fast enough, while a human driver can make a human mistake and kill each other.
A quick search over the internet brings NHTSA 2008 survey where 93% of accidents are caused by human errors. An older US study from 2001 said 99% of studied accidents where caused by "human behavior". Human drivers can run faster the road allows, can cross red signals, drive while writing on the cellphone, drive sleepy, they only need to predict if the cops are nearby.
The AI "brain" of the self driving car is notoriously bad at handling situations it has never seen before. AI must be "trained" via simulations and real road miles. Their pattern recognition is still highly questionable. One of the recent headlines I posted about earlier was that the AI failed to recognize a woman pushing a bicycle across the street and made a decision to mow the "object" over, rather than slow/stop/swerve. The AI can recognize a bicycle, and a woman, but apparently, not a woman pushing a bicycle. This kind of thing is easy for humans. Obviously, not for AI.

The perennial problem with aircraft is that when they fail, hundreds die, as in recent the 737 Max disasters. These always make the headlines. Car wrecks, only a few to maybe a dozen die, but they happen way more often as you have noted from the NHTSA stats.

AI is massively complex. It certainly has a ways to go. The article I posted a few days ago indicates some areas are really good for self driving cars, and some are too undisciplined for those vehicle to function, other locations are somewhere in between. So we will see self driving cars soon, just more or less as the operating environment allows.
2013 Rodriguez FF Sabicas blanco
2015 Trevor Gore custom Neoclassical
- redwood top, Palo dorado B+Ss.

User avatar
guitarrista
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: driverless cars

Post by guitarrista » Thu May 09, 2019 10:00 pm

Andrew Pohlman wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:38 pm
The AI "brain" of the self driving car is notoriously bad at handling situations it has never seen before.
That's because it is not really "artificial intelligence" despite the cool name; just some pattern matching, regressions, and the like.
Konstantin
--
1982 Anselmo Solar Gonzalez

PeteJ
Posts: 1370
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: driverless cars

Post by PeteJ » Fri May 10, 2019 8:14 am

guitarrista wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:00 pm
That's because it is not really "artificial intelligence" despite the cool name; just some pattern matching, regressions, and the like.
Enthusiasts tend to forget this. Any AI program can be recreated on a sufficiently large abacus. Intelligence is not a sensible word for mindless computatiion.

User avatar
eno
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by eno » Fri May 10, 2019 1:53 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 8:14 am
guitarrista wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:00 pm
That's because it is not really "artificial intelligence" despite the cool name; just some pattern matching, regressions, and the like.
Enthusiasts tend to forget this. Any AI program can be recreated on a sufficiently large abacus. Intelligence is not a sensible word for mindless computatiion.
Actually, if "AI" ever becomes intelligent in a full sense of the word that would be a real danger and disaster. We don't want that to happen.
Paulino Bernabe 'India' 2001
Takamine C136S 1976
Masaru Kohno No.6 1967

User avatar
lagartija
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11409
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:37 pm
Location: Western Massachusetts, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by lagartija » Fri May 10, 2019 8:15 pm

eno wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 1:53 pm
PeteJ wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 8:14 am
guitarrista wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:00 pm
That's because it is not really "artificial intelligence" despite the cool name; just some pattern matching, regressions, and the like.
Enthusiasts tend to forget this. Any AI program can be recreated on a sufficiently large abacus. Intelligence is not a sensible word for mindless computatiion.
Actually, if "AI" ever becomes intelligent in a full sense of the word that would be a real danger and disaster. We don't want that to happen.
HAL, open the pod bay doors...
I’m sorry Dave..... I can’t do that.
When the sun shines, bask.
__/^^^^^o>
Classical Guitar forever!

simonm
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9253
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:22 am
Location: Spain, IB

Re: driverless cars

Post by simonm » Tue May 14, 2019 7:45 pm

eno wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 1:53 pm
...
Actually, if "AI" ever becomes intelligent in a full sense of the word that would be a real danger and disaster. We don't want that to happen.
Can we prevent it?

User avatar
guitarrista
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: driverless cars

Post by guitarrista » Tue May 14, 2019 7:55 pm

eno wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 1:53 pm
...
Actually, if "AI" ever becomes intelligent in a full sense of the word that would be a real danger and disaster. We don't want that to happen.
Self-consciousness is not the same as intelligence, and the "intelligence" required here is not the same as that of a human. Birds are intelligent enough to distinguish people from inanimate objects; indeed, the lowly city pigeons can even remember and recognize individual faces. You are not afraid of birds, are you (Yeah, yeah, great movie, we all know about it, shut up, Alfred)? The "AI" of self-driving cars is not even at the level of a dumb bird; if it ever gets there.
Last edited by guitarrista on Wed May 15, 2019 12:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Konstantin
--
1982 Anselmo Solar Gonzalez

Andrew Pohlman
Posts: 1506
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: driverless cars

Post by Andrew Pohlman » Tue May 14, 2019 9:47 pm

guitarrista wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 7:55 pm
eno wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 1:53 pm
...
Actually, if "AI" ever becomes intelligent in a full sense of the word that would be a real danger and disaster. We don't want that to happen.
Self-consciousness is not the same as intelligence, and the "intelligence" required here is not the same as that of a human. Birds are intelligent enough to distinguish people from inanimate objects; indeed, the lowly city pigeons can even remember and recognize individual faces. You are not afraid of birds, are you? The "AI" of self-driving cars is not even at the level of a dumb bird; if it ever gets there.
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Our politicians and lobbyists will make sure the above NEVER happens. It's not the AI we need to worry about, it's politicians, lobbyists, and their lawyers. :D
2013 Rodriguez FF Sabicas blanco
2015 Trevor Gore custom Neoclassical
- redwood top, Palo dorado B+Ss.

User avatar
eno
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by eno » Thu May 16, 2019 6:27 pm

Andrew Pohlman wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:47 pm
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Our politicians and lobbyists will make sure the above NEVER happens. It's not the AI we need to worry about, it's politicians, lobbyists, and their lawyers. :D
Hey, not so easy. Thousands of hobbyists are now building robots at home. Once AI technology becomes broadly available, anyone in his basement can make it and alter the code anyway he wants. Including hackers, terrorists, mentally unstable people. Make AI/robot able to reproduce and alter their code to allow malicious behavior and we are done here on Earth.
Paulino Bernabe 'India' 2001
Takamine C136S 1976
Masaru Kohno No.6 1967

PeteJ
Posts: 1370
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: driverless cars

Post by PeteJ » Fri May 17, 2019 9:36 am

I suspect we're done anyway. With luck there'll be survivors, a few members of a few species.

User avatar
BugDog
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:07 pm
Location: Northern KY USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by BugDog » Sun May 19, 2019 1:48 pm

I know we're in the realm of science fiction, but why is the assumption that a truly conscious AI would be malevolent?

We humans are pretty bad with our relationships to other, lesser, creatures, but generally those revolve around competition for resources, (or are resources). For the most part, if they don't bother us, we don't bother them. The only exception I can think of is trophy hunting, or things along that line.

Why would AI be any different? What resources would we be in competition for? Electrical power and some chemicals specific to silicon life forms? I don't see a lot of grief there. They might "cull the herd" but maintaining a sustainable human population is something our "natural" human intelligence hasn't seemed to be able to manage.
BugDog
There's one in every crowd.

simonm
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9253
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:22 am
Location: Spain, IB

Re: driverless cars

Post by simonm » Sun May 19, 2019 3:41 pm

BugDog wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 1:48 pm
... What resources would we be in competition for? Electrical power ...
I have never looked at it very seriously but I did hear somewhere that data centres already account for 10% of world electricity usage. If you asked here 5 years ago who has networked "white goods" the answer would have been zero. Today there are certainly some people whose fridges/washing machines etc are networked and in some way or another are part of a "cloud". In a recent group with 9 participants (+me), 2 admitted to having networked washing machines. Such internet of things will drive the energy demand in data centers over the next few years.

BugDog wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 1:48 pm
... but why is the assumption that a truly conscious AI would be malevolent?
Is there any compelling reason why it would not be self-serving?

daldal64
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 12:53 am
Location: Japan

Re: driverless cars

Post by daldal64 » Mon May 20, 2019 2:11 am

I live in Japan and at Next summer's Olympics the government plans to introduce driver-less taxis. I'm curious to see how that will work in the incredibly congested city of Tokyo. After living more than 20 years here I can safely say that I have rarely met a taxi driver that can speak English or any other language. I'm sure these multi-lingual taxis will be welcomed by the millions of tourists that will be here next summer.

Cheers, Dave

User avatar
eno
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by eno » Mon May 20, 2019 4:07 pm

BugDog wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 1:48 pm
I know we're in the realm of science fiction, but why is the assumption that a truly conscious AI would be malevolent?

We humans are pretty bad with our relationships to other, lesser, creatures, but generally those revolve around competition for resources, (or are resources). For the most part, if they don't bother us, we don't bother them. The only exception I can think of is trophy hunting, or things along that line.

Why would AI be any different? What resources would we be in competition for? Electrical power and some chemicals specific to silicon life forms? I don't see a lot of grief there. They might "cull the herd" but maintaining a sustainable human population is something our "natural" human intelligence hasn't seemed to be able to manage.
A truly highly-developed intelligent and conscious AI should not be malevolent. But there is a long way for AI to get to that point through intermediate development stages where AI will not yet fully understand what it's doing and could be programmed by some malevolent humans to do harmful things. For example, a political dictator in an attempt to get a full control of the world may create an army of military AI soldier robots able to endlessly reproduce, learn and adapt but firmly programmed to destroy as a top-priority goal. So as long as malevolent humans exist on earth there will always be possibilities of abusing the technology in malevolent ways. As the technology becomes more and more powerful, the dangers of abusing it also become greater.
Paulino Bernabe 'India' 2001
Takamine C136S 1976
Masaru Kohno No.6 1967

Return to “The Café”