Am I the only one who isn't for these 'self-driving' car projects? What's wrong with us driving instead of computers? Also..."self driving cars"...we already have that...it's what we have now.
Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
21–30 of 83 posts
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#22I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear…
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear…
DO hold the brake if you are about to be rear ended.
It results in less acceleration, and you are less likely to be projected into an obstacle.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#23I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear…
> Google's absolutely correct that its AVs are never at fault in any of these accidents, legally speaking. Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? By definition , we don't do that with human drivers that don't meet the legal circumstances to be "at fault" even if in the specific case it would be possible for them to avoid the accident but…
I think what brownbat is saying is that regardless of legal outcome, there is potential for AVs to do better than humans here. Not that they have to, just that they could.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#24Have any of the AV teams said anything about testing in hazardous road conditions yet? Driving rain, thick fog, heavy snow, sleet, the like. Maybe the answer they'll give is, "Don't drive you dummy", but that's not really an acceptable solution for most people.
Isn't it interesting that people who relinquish their mobility to a computer will loose their driving skills? Maps nicely to other things.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear…
DO hold the brake if you are about to be rear ended. It results in less acceleration, and you are less likely to be projected into an obstacle.
Doesn't this depend on what is in front of you? If you can safely move forward, wouldn't not holding the brake be better?
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
DO hold the brake if you are about to be rear ended. It results in less acceleration, and you are less likely to be projected into an obstacle.
Doesn't this depend on what is in front of you? If you can safely move forward, wouldn't not holding the brake be better?
Assuming an intersection, wouldn't it be better to be rear-ended hard than having a vehicle slam into the driver's side door?
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#27The thing that really stands out here isn't that the accidents occurred (which is sort of amusing), but rather the excellent analytics the car produced. The car knew where it was, how long it was stopped, the conditions at the time of the accident, and the relative velocities of the vehicle that caused the accident. This is going to change the nature of automobile accidents entirely. The amount of data we'll be able…
I'm sorta unconvinced we'll actually see any benefit. Humans are notoriously picky about their privacy; The ability to get black-box data for insurance purposes has been around for years, but most people would rather not, for good reason, have their insurers poking around their driving habits. I expect some backlash against cars collecting this data on their driving neighbors. What if the self-driving car isn't invol…
All of this information can be derived from a dashcam, and they're ubiquitous today.
And yes, in 10 years time there will be no such notion as 'private travel'. Between your phone's GSM/CDMA, bluetooth and wifi signals and dashcams, security and traffic cameras, there will be dozens of parties who monitor every move any person makes outside of their home in urban or suburban areas (be it by car, foot or bike). With different forms of computer vision, that data is sorted and linked to other recordings of objects and there will be dozens of databases that have exact information on where everybody is, 95+% of the time.
One of my pet research projects (although I'm not making much progress in terms of actual work or publications) is on a system of tracking 'people' in a generalized form. It's basically a concept of 'strands' of information along different axises ('location', 'finance', 'internet', 'health' and a few others) which can be joined by an overarching matching algorithm infrastructure. Furthermore, each 'strand' has a 'source' and one can join datasets by deciding 'this source I know is reliable, take this as truth' or from several less trusted ones by using voting or bayesian inference. It's basically a formalization of 'doxing' - an overarching framework to work with personally identifying data from sources of varying degrees of trustworthiness.
I'm sure many people are working on something like this already, but in private and with the goal of using it against 'us' (for a broad definition of 'us'). The only way (ok, maybe not 'only' way, 'one of' the ways) to defend is to acknowledge that privacy is dead and to develop offensive capacities; much like the only last resort against tyranny is a well-armed populace.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#28The thing that really stands out here isn't that the accidents occurred (which is sort of amusing), but rather the excellent analytics the car produced. The car knew where it was, how long it was stopped, the conditions at the time of the accident, and the relative velocities of the vehicle that caused the accident. This is going to change the nature of automobile accidents entirely. The amount of data we'll be able…
I'm thinking the same-thing but they could even take this data out of the self driving car, apply it to a normal car and even in that case it would be a huge change that could be incredibly beneficial!
Some normal cars already have systems like this.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#29The thing that really stands out here isn't that the accidents occurred (which is sort of amusing), but rather the excellent analytics the car produced. The car knew where it was, how long it was stopped, the conditions at the time of the accident, and the relative velocities of the vehicle that caused the accident. This is going to change the nature of automobile accidents entirely. The amount of data we'll be able…
I'm sorta unconvinced we'll actually see any benefit. Humans are notoriously picky about their privacy; The ability to get black-box data for insurance purposes has been around for years, but most people would rather not, for good reason, have their insurers poking around their driving habits. I expect some backlash against cars collecting this data on their driving neighbors. What if the self-driving car isn't invol…
> I'd like it to be a simple check if any of your partners were STD positive; This is currently information that is hard to get reliably (Sure, your partner can hand you test results, but not verifiable ones; The clinic won't attest to it if you call to reference your partner's results, so you can never be certain it's not a clever photoshop).
If you want verifiable results, you can get them. Get yourself tested at the same place. Accompany your partner to pick up their results. You'll strain the relationship, but you can have the proof.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#30I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear…
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear…
I've been taught to always hold the break when at a stop light. If you get rear-ended, you won't roll into the intersection. Also, always hold the steering wheel, so you keep control if you get rear-ended.