|
Post by ganews on Apr 23, 2017 15:07:50 GMT -5
Yes, once everyone has one it will be great. I look forward to the day of ubiquitous True Perfect Driverless cars. It's the transition that's the problem. People have a lot of money invested in their cars; is the government going to mandate that those investments are now worthless? Is this government going to buy a hundred-to-multi-thousand-dollar upgrade for every dumbcar still on the road? Think of it like guns, which last a long time with proper care: you could stop new sales tomorrow, but there's still a lot out there and will be for decades. I hope this thread is around in twenty years. I think it's at least as likely to be We Were Promised Jetpacks. Insurance companies will push it a lot, increasing rates on cars with less automation in favor of those with more. It will certainly be disruptive to the poor, but there are some possibilities there. At some point it may make more sense for the poor to rent a driverless car for a few hours than to try to maintain an old rust bucket. I swear, every bit of discussion on this is circular. So if that happens and insurance gets jacked, people will just drive illegally without insurance. They already do! Anyway, the point is that there will be a not-insignificant number of dumbcars out there even years after a True Perfect Driverless cars become theoretically ubiquitous. This is a serious technical challenge, because it is way easier for every single car to operate on a super-Bluetooth. And unless the government gives out free upgrades (which again, who is developing backwards-compatible driverless tech? b/c that's not where the money is) it's just turning/perpetuating a whole class of people into criminals. Also being punished are the people who don't want the cops to be able to remotely shut down their getaway car, or the normally lawful citizens rushing pregnant wives or friends who can't afford ambulance rides to the emergency room. Anyway, today on Freakanomics radio they were talking about environmental efficiency improvements, and how things can be complicated, and it got me to thinking. Like the resources in producing and washing a ceramic mug vs. a thousand disposable cups, or electric hand dryers vs. paper towels. I don't bring this up to be anti-environment; quite the contrary. I wonder if the efficiency improvements promised by perfect driverless cars could actually outweigh the fact that way more people would be in individual robot cars/taxis (plus the empty robot taxis en route to pick up passengers). I suspect the same problem of adding more lanes to alleviate traffic congestion, except that just means that more cars get driven that route and the problem doesn't change. As much as I really would like to see myself and everybody else in a personal jetpack, my concern is that in the short term development will continue to be (driverless) car-centric instead of oriented around efficient technology that already exists, namely density and mass transit. Because mass transit is for poor losers and I want to be alone while I look at my phone. But seriously, we're going to a dinner party in DC tonight. I'm driving even though I'm right next to a Metro stop and they're right next to a Metro stop because Metro suuuuucks and "my" station is even closed for two weeks. If the trains were regular on the weekend and the fare wasn't outrageous (especially compared to carpooling) in would be preferable. But there's no venture capital in improving Metro...
|
|
|
Post by nowimnothing on Apr 24, 2017 17:20:13 GMT -5
Insurance companies will push it a lot, increasing rates on cars with less automation in favor of those with more. It will certainly be disruptive to the poor, but there are some possibilities there. At some point it may make more sense for the poor to rent a driverless car for a few hours than to try to maintain an old rust bucket. I swear, every bit of discussion on this is circular. So if that happens and insurance gets jacked, people will just drive illegally without insurance. They already do! Anyway, the point is that there will be a not-insignificant number of dumbcars out there even years after a True Perfect Driverless cars become theoretically ubiquitous. This is a serious technical challenge, because it is way easier for every single car to operate on a super-Bluetooth. And unless the government gives out free upgrades (which again, who is developing backwards-compatible driverless tech? b/c that's not where the money is) it's just turning/perpetuating a whole class of people into criminals. Also being punished are the people who don't want the cops to be able to remotely shut down their getaway car, or the normally lawful citizens rushing pregnant wives or friends who can't afford ambulance rides to the emergency room. Anyway, today on Freakanomics radio they were talking about environmental efficiency improvements, and how things can be complicated, and it got me to thinking. Like the resources in producing and washing a ceramic mug vs. a thousand disposable cups, or electric hand dryers vs. paper towels. I don't bring this up to be anti-environment; quite the contrary. I wonder if the efficiency improvements promised by perfect driverless cars could actually outweigh the fact that way more people would be in individual robot cars/taxis (plus the empty robot taxis en route to pick up passengers). I suspect the same problem of adding more lanes to alleviate traffic congestion, except that just means that more cars get driven that route and the problem doesn't change. As much as I really would like to see myself and everybody else in a personal jetpack, my concern is that in the short term development will continue to be (driverless) car-centric instead of oriented around efficient technology that already exists, namely density and mass transit. Because mass transit is for poor losers and I want to be alone while I look at my phone. But seriously, we're going to a dinner party in DC tonight. I'm driving even though I'm right next to a Metro stop and they're right next to a Metro stop because Metro suuuuucks and "my" station is even closed for two weeks. If the trains were regular on the weekend and the fare wasn't outrageous (especially compared to carpooling) in would be preferable. But there's no venture capital in improving Metro... I don't disagree with any of that. This has the potential of being a hugely disruptive technology. The question is whether the downsides are big enough to derail it before it gets going. To me driverless tech hits that uniquely American sweet spot between laziness and individual liberty. In Europe attitudes and reliance on mass transit is much different, so the appeal may be less. Only time will tell whether driverless tech is more like the Model T or more like Segway.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on May 18, 2017 7:40:02 GMT -5
He sure does. As much as I'd like to have a perfect robot car because I don't enjoy driving, the main reason the technology displeases me is the way it is being developed. The millions or billions being thrown at R&D for a tech promising dubious systemic benefits (just increased safety if/when it becomes truly widespread) could so easily be spent on more efficient transit technology that exists now and needs the infrastructure spending. Shit, I had to drive twenty minutes to get to a different metro station because the one down the hill from my house is closed for weeks. Rich people can buy robot cars or own robot taxi services, and only poor suckers take trains and buses, so we know what to fund.
|
|
heroboy
AV Clubber
I must succeed!
Posts: 1,185
|
Post by heroboy on May 18, 2017 11:28:47 GMT -5
He sure does. As much as I'd like to have a perfect robot car because I don't enjoy driving, the main reason the technology displeases me is the way it is being developed. The millions or billions being thrown at R&D for a tech promising dubious systemic benefits (just increased safety if/when it becomes truly widespread) could so easily be spent on more efficient transit technology that exists now and needs the infrastructure spending. Shit, I had to drive twenty minutes to get to a different metro station because the one down the hill from my house is closed for weeks. Rich people can buy robot cars or own robot taxi services, and only poor suckers take trains and buses, so we know what to fund. I find it kind of an odd statement to say we shouldn't be spending money on X when we have a problem with Y. It's not Tesla's priority to upgrade municipal transit. That money should be spent by the cities and states, unless you would prefer a privatized transit system.
That said, he's also in the planning phase to start a Boring business to hopefully reduce costs to install municipal subways. And he's spent millions of his own money paying for engineering to start up his Hyperloop concept, which he wouldn't profit from if it ever comes to fruition.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on May 18, 2017 11:52:55 GMT -5
He sure does. As much as I'd like to have a perfect robot car because I don't enjoy driving, the main reason the technology displeases me is the way it is being developed. The millions or billions being thrown at R&D for a tech promising dubious systemic benefits (just increased safety if/when it becomes truly widespread) could so easily be spent on more efficient transit technology that exists now and needs the infrastructure spending. Shit, I had to drive twenty minutes to get to a different metro station because the one down the hill from my house is closed for weeks. Rich people can buy robot cars or own robot taxi services, and only poor suckers take trains and buses, so we know what to fund. I find it kind of an odd statement to say we shouldn't be spending money on X when we have a problem with Y. It's not Tesla's priority to upgrade municipal transit. That money should be spent by the cities and states, unless you would prefer a privatized transit system.
That said, he's also in the planning phase to start a Boring business to hopefully reduce costs to install municipal subways. And he's spent millions of his own money paying for engineering to start up his Hyperloop concept, which he wouldn't profit from if it ever comes to fruition.
It's not just Tesla. Certainly, Musk wants to invest his own money, great. I'm just referring to public funding. And sure, public funding for research is important too. It's really about large, systemic priorities. The more driverless cars are hyped, the more difficult it is to get support for efficient, car-free development. I'm very skeptical that even perfect driverless cars are going to make massive efficiency improvements - but it's one of those things that can't be proven or disproven until it is widely adopted (which kind of makes it the perfect vaporware), and wide adoption will necessitate government involvement.
|
|
heroboy
AV Clubber
I must succeed!
Posts: 1,185
|
Post by heroboy on May 18, 2017 12:10:08 GMT -5
I find it kind of an odd statement to say we shouldn't be spending money on X when we have a problem with Y. It's not Tesla's priority to upgrade municipal transit. That money should be spent by the cities and states, unless you would prefer a privatized transit system.
That said, he's also in the planning phase to start a Boring business to hopefully reduce costs to install municipal subways. And he's spent millions of his own money paying for engineering to start up his Hyperloop concept, which he wouldn't profit from if it ever comes to fruition.
It's not just Tesla. Certainly, Musk wants to invest his own money, great. I'm just referring to public funding. And sure, public funding for research is important too. It's really about large, systemic priorities. The more driverless cars are hyped, the more difficult it is to get support for efficient, car-free development. I'm very skeptical that even perfect driverless cars are going to make massive efficiency improvements - but it's one of those things that can't be proven or disproven until it is widely adopted (which kind of makes it the perfect vaporware), and wide adoption will necessitate government involvement. But most of the driverless research is being self-funded by companies like Google, Daewoo, and Tesla. I'm sure the government has made some research grants, but the vast majority is being paid for by private companies because they can see that once perfected, driverless cars will be a massive industry and everyone wants to get there first. That is why Uber paid $680M to hire one of Google's ex-engineers (and supposedly Google's trade secrets), just so that they don't get left behind.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on May 18, 2017 14:13:06 GMT -5
It's not just Tesla. Certainly, Musk wants to invest his own money, great. I'm just referring to public funding. And sure, public funding for research is important too. It's really about large, systemic priorities. The more driverless cars are hyped, the more difficult it is to get support for efficient, car-free development. I'm very skeptical that even perfect driverless cars are going to make massive efficiency improvements - but it's one of those things that can't be proven or disproven until it is widely adopted (which kind of makes it the perfect vaporware), and wide adoption will necessitate government involvement. But most of the driverless research is being self-funded by companies like Google, Daewoo, and Tesla. I'm sure the government has made some research grants, but the vast majority is being paid for by private companies because they can see that once perfected, driverless cars will be a massive industry and everyone wants to get there first. That is why Uber paid $680M to hire one of Google's ex-engineers (and supposedly Google's trade secrets), just so that they don't get left behind. If they make a perfect robot on their own, great. If they can only do it with massive, specialized, government-funded infrastructure modification, there's a not of potential for not-great.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jul 14, 2017 21:04:35 GMT -5
This is what I mean when I talk about government-funded infrastructure for driverless cars coming at loss of other infrastructure. So I guess everyone who can't afford a robot car will just pay the taxes for the construction of those dedicated lanes? Or be squeezed over when existing lanes are commandeered? Oh the dedicated lanes will be funded by tolls - just like the tolled express lanes here in DC that you only take if you can afford it and which also don't pay for themselves. The more I think about it, the more I am skeptical of a fleet of robot taxis. As the article says, in the early stages they wouldn't reach areas not currently served by regular taxis. What's the advantage to the regular taxi customer who already gets driven in a car without being distracted away from their phone, not having to speak to their fellow man? You may say "lower fare" because now a driver doesn't get paid. Uber's whole business model is based on spending venture capital to create a monopoly by cutting rates on regular cabs, then move into driverless; well monopolies aren't great at keeping prices low.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Rumak on Jul 24, 2017 19:20:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jul 24, 2017 20:01:18 GMT -5
We should install shock collars on pedestrians. I for one welcome our robot car overlords.
|
|
|
Post by MyNameIsNoneOfYourGoddamnBusin on Sept 7, 2017 18:27:41 GMT -5
I was at an outdoor for driverless and other experimental car models and prototypes this afternoon (because Detroit), and I found one from a Michigan State engineering team that was absolutely terrifying and completely practical at the same time. It's bridging the gap between drivered and non-drivered cars and has a sensor to watch your face and then inwardly judges you to determine your mood and then ups its autonomous features if it doesn't trust you to drive properly. Which means it might decide you're too intoxicated, which is fine I guess, but also could mean the car detects that you're too sad to be paying the right amount of attention. This is how it starts---the robots declaring that our human emotions make us ineffective at performing tasks.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Rumak on Sept 14, 2017 17:45:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nowimnothing on Sept 17, 2017 17:59:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Rumak on Nov 9, 2017 12:03:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Nov 16, 2017 23:23:08 GMT -5
Uber is testing out their driverless cars here.
I wonder if anyone involved in programming these things considered what would happen if you put a car on the road which obeys all posted speed limits while NONE of the human-operated cars do? Or, what happens if your car is programmed to make the turn, then immediately merge into the next lane over while all the human operated cars just turn into the next lane over to begin with because it is LESS DANGEROUS?
What I am saying is, I'm now very tired of Uber driverless cars being the cause of slow morning traffic. It is quite amusing to see the human operated cars weaving around them.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Dec 21, 2017 20:38:11 GMT -5
|
|
Rainbow Rosa
TI Forumite
not gay, just colorful
Posts: 3,604
|
Post by Rainbow Rosa on Dec 22, 2017 13:39:21 GMT -5
I don't typically agree with Elon Musk, but who the fuck is saying we should emulate a system where something like two-thirds of the teenage girls on it get molested?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Dec 27, 2017 21:57:16 GMT -5
That is certainly a scourge. I’d argue that seeking remedies within a rational system of mass transit that maximizes economy of scale, minimizes emissions per capita, and serves everyone equally is preferable to those aimed not at those primarily, but at the enrichment of Elon Musk and his ilk.
Has Japan had success in lowering the incidence of groping over time? It’s a very longstanding problem. They’ve operated women-only cars for some time.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Rumak on Jan 2, 2018 13:38:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jan 2, 2018 14:35:20 GMT -5
But really the whole article could have just been titled "Nobody Could Have Predicted". The autoplaying video at the bottom is pretty funny. I feel like the copy was written after someone saw Dr. Strangelove - "It is not only possible, it is essential."
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jan 24, 2018 12:44:17 GMT -5
I wonder if Tesla is going to get sued for calling it "autopilot", or if some clever lawyering can get out of a DUI by saying "it was on 'autopilot'!" is spite of their warnings. It can't be too difficult to point out that their caveats and marketing concept are diametrically opposed. www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-crash-dui/
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Rumak on Feb 21, 2018 22:38:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Feb 22, 2018 21:45:02 GMT -5
More like a complete certainty. Well, I'm sure you can pay extra to skip the ads, like Spotify.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Feb 24, 2018 19:01:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jean Luc de Lemur on Feb 25, 2018 12:35:06 GMT -5
More like a complete certainty. Well, I'm sure you can pay extra to skip the ads, like Spotify. I “like” the fact that the top comment is “don’t worry, your augmented reality glasses will have adblock!” Hey guys, maybe there’s a simpler solution to all of this?
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Feb 25, 2018 15:46:12 GMT -5
More like a complete certainty. Well, I'm sure you can pay extra to skip the ads, like Spotify. I “like” the fact that the top comment is “don’t worry, your augmented reality glasses will have adblock!” Hey guys, maybe there’s a simpler solution to all of this? Quiet with that talk, there's venture capitalists and city councils to grift!
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Mar 13, 2018 10:50:34 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder if all the talk about the end of work is already underway in an incremental fashion. I read through all of our work thread and I see a lot of wasted hours. I say that not in a condescending way, but it is not like we are an unusual group (probably more affluent and educated on average but still representative of a large group.) But by all measures, humans are more productive than any other time in history. We may not be in a post scarcity world yet, but it seems like the number of hours we all work is more based on tradition than any real need. I'm pretty sure that most of the steel jobs (if any) that come about due to steel tariffs are going to go to robots. Once driverless trucks and forklifts hit, we're going to have a landslide. Warehouse floor to front door delivery, all by robot? So many jobs just won't be necessary. Maybe some trucks can do pure robot-to-robot. As for UPS: even if driverless trucks work on level 5 autonomy, which they won't, and the truck is loaded by a robot, which it probably can be for most things, a human is still going to have to walk the package up the driveway and ring grandma's doorbell.
|
|
|
Post by nowimnothing on Mar 13, 2018 11:31:36 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that most of the steel jobs (if any) that come about due to steel tariffs are going to go to robots. Once driverless trucks and forklifts hit, we're going to have a landslide. Warehouse floor to front door delivery, all by robot? So many jobs just won't be necessary. Maybe some trucks can do pure robot-to-robot. As for UPS: even if driverless trucks work on level 5 autonomy, which they won't, and the truck is loaded by a robot, which it probably can be for most things, a human is still going to have to walk the package up the driveway and ring grandma's doorbell. I have been thinking that we really need to update home delivery methods given the massive increase in online shopping. Dropping boxes on the front porch is not secure and invites all kinds of mischief. I also don't see the home access delivery thing taking off, just too creepy. But what if we started replacing mailboxes with large locking containers? I could see those integrating with a robotic vehicle delivery system.
|
|
|
Post by Celebith on Mar 13, 2018 11:37:58 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that most of the steel jobs (if any) that come about due to steel tariffs are going to go to robots. Once driverless trucks and forklifts hit, we're going to have a landslide. Warehouse floor to front door delivery, all by robot? So many jobs just won't be necessary. Maybe some trucks can do pure robot-to-robot. As for UPS: even if driverless trucks work on level 5 autonomy, which they won't, and the truck is loaded by a robot, which it probably can be for most things, a human is still going to have to walk the package up the driveway and ring grandma's doorbell. Oh, we'll still have humans in the chain somewhere, just a lot fewer of them. And that's not even factoring in drones. Drones based off of delivery trucks could bridge the driveway gap without having to fly from a central distribution hub. Either way, it's going to shake up a lot of industries.
|
|
|
Post by Jean Luc de Lemur on Mar 14, 2018 1:29:09 GMT -5
Oh, we'll still have humans in the chain somewhere, just a lot fewer of them. I read a while back that one of the reasons why Amazon Warehouses are so demanding is that you’re essentially locked into a workflow that’s determined with a lot of automation in mind, and you’re basically only there because there’s no robot with the manual or on-your-feet thinking skills able to do what’s required at that point in the supply chain. You’re still worked as if you’re in the supply chain, in a sense taking orders from a heavily-automated middle management.[/quote]
|
|