Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#31

Post by _rpd »

JamilD wrote: post #2

> The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?

> How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?

Algorithmic error - algorithm responds poorly to rare environmental condition (naturally or artificially generated).

Emergent behavior error - algorithm for individual vehicle safety causes unsafe conditions for groups of vehicles in certain circumstances.

Security vulnerability - mass hacking of vehicle systems by malicious actors.

Bureaucratic vulnerability - politician or bureaucrat demands mass remote disabling of vehicles or other mass action that plays well in a television soundbite, but for which the system was not designed and can not carry out safely.

There are some big challenges for automated driving. The backlashes against the inevitable disasters could define the industry. No one is going to pay for more than token research into these areas, and regulation is always at least 20 years behind. It's up to the engineers on the ground to build in mitigation mechanisms.

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#32

Post by kjbflsudfb »

sqeaky wrote: post #9
kjbflsudfb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending the argument, but I suspect the author was referring to the reduction in safety equipment installed on autonomous vehicles leading to more grisly accidents. From the article: "One of the claims made for autonomous cars is that they can be lighter, shedding heavy metal crash cells and expensive safety gear, like airbags, saving fuel."

I would hope we wouldn't do that until they have demonstrated years of safety. We would also need to get most of the humans off the road. No amount of self-driving AI can dodge a human with intent (or stupidity), a similar performing vehicle and a headstart.

I agree. Additionally I cannot find any reference to the author's statement about autonomous vehicles without airbags, etc.

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#33

Post by r00fus »

sqeaky wrote: post #25
sqeaky wrote: post #7

Yes, yes we want them. Idiotic things like this in the article miss the point: > And yet this trend has never been voted on or discussed seriously by our politicians We already voted with our dollars and will continue to do so (and our politicians suck). The article also has stupid shit like: > The truth is, no one knows for sure how many lives could be saved by driverless cars, because data on the role of human erro…

I like how the article uses the economic argument: > Yes, jobs will be created by these new cars, but many will be lost. Every time a company, economy, nation or empire doesn't follow the route that saves more human effort they are outcompeted (or conquered) by those who do. This is as much an argument against self driving cars as much as it is an argument against automation in principle. We need to figure how to han…

> Every time a company, economy, nation or empire doesn't follow the route that saves more human effort they are outcompeted (or conquered) by those who do.

The economics of slavery seem to be an effective rebuttal to your point, unless slaves are put in the role of automaton (and not human).

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#34

Post by sqeaky »

r00fus wrote: post #33
sqeaky wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how the article uses the economic argument: > Yes, jobs will be created by these new cars, but many will be lost. Every time a company, economy, nation or empire doesn't follow the route that saves more human effort they are outcompeted (or conquered) by those who do. This is as much an argument against self driving cars as much as it is an argument against automation in principle. We need to figure how to han…

> Every time a company, economy, nation or empire doesn't follow the route that saves more human effort they are outcompeted (or conquered) by those who do. The economics of slavery seem to be an effective rebuttal to your point, unless slaves are put in the role of automaton (and not human).

Really its not unless you somehow stop counting them as people. People have high maintanence costs whether or not they are a slave. Slaves also revolt. Beasts of burden and Robots (so far) cannot revolt.

Also you miss out on a large portion of the person's output if they are slave. There are very few slave inventors.

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#35

Post by saint_fiasco »

protomyth wrote: post #30
saint_fiasco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Packing cars together and synchronizing them is probably the safer way. Less chance that a car, person or animal will get between two cars if the space between them is less. How many pedestrians are killed by jumping between two train wagons?

I would rather we take small step, and frankly deer have no problem jumping into groups of cars or even between semis and their trailers. They are not a situationally aware animal. > How many pedestrians are killed by jumping between two train wagons? How many tires blow out per year, or cars get slippery?

Fewer tires than they would if a computer checked their air pressure diligently.

Taking small steps is fine, but the smallness should be in the location, not the density. Just a small neighborhood with only self driving cars, instead of a large neighborhood with a small proportion of self driving cars.

And of course, a deer-free neighborhood will be best to start with.

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#36

Post by r00fus »

sqeaky wrote: post #34
r00fus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time a company, economy, nation or empire doesn't follow the route that saves more human effort they are outcompeted (or conquered) by those who do. The economics of slavery seem to be an effective rebuttal to your point, unless slaves are put in the role of automaton (and not human).

Really its not unless you somehow stop counting them as people. People have high maintanence costs whether or not they are a slave. Slaves also revolt. Beasts of burden and Robots (so far) cannot revolt. Also you miss out on a large portion of the person's output if they are slave. There are very few slave inventors.

Slave inventors - 5 high-profile counterpoints: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/11/5-inventions-by-ensla...

I'd say the only reason they were "missed out" is because of the politics of slavery.

The entire basis that efficiency of human effort is competitively dominant relies on a definition of human as only the "humans benefiting from automation" leaving out those who don't benefit out of the equation.

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#37

Post by nojvek »

People hate losing control. We know how shit our answer machines are. Google says there algorithms are good but there is no open benchmark of various driving scenarios for which every self driving algorithm should pass.

Even openpilot gives a big Blob of binary that I should trust.

It's my goddamn life. I'm not going to let a company whose #1 goal is to make me click as many ads as they can run my car.

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#38

Post by sqeaky »

r00fus wrote: post #36
sqeaky wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really its not unless you somehow stop counting them as people. People have high maintanence costs whether or not they are a slave. Slaves also revolt. Beasts of burden and Robots (so far) cannot revolt. Also you miss out on a large portion of the person's output if they are slave. There are very few slave inventors.

Slave inventors - 5 high-profile counterpoints: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/11/5-inventions-by-ensla... I'd say the only reason they were "missed out" is because of the politics of slavery. The entire basis that efficiency of human effort is competitively dominant relies on a definition of human as only the "humans benefiting from automation" leaving out those who don't benefit out of the equation.

You must be trolling to seriously compare the creative disruption automation causes to real human loss slavery causes.

Compared to the non-slave inventors the list of slave inventors is disproportionately tiny. A few anecdotal people don't hold muster to waves of people innovating. I can point to single companies with hundreds of inventors.

In the long run automation benefits everyone, even the people who temporarily lose their jobs. Those people are encouraged to get back into the work force and to do the best they can even they have less work to do because of some new tool. Slaves were sometimes killed for not working hard enough. If slaves invented a labor saving device they got non of the benefit and instead any value increase was entirely given to the slave's owner. Employees can choose who to work for and choose their conditions, slaves cannot. Employees can try see their obsolescence coming and go to school, shift careers or fight it, slaves can only do as they are told.

Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

#40

Post by asdz »

> Jamie Lincoln Kitman, a lawyer, is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine.

for sure you're against it

when driverless car is out and everyone is adopt to it, the whole automobile industry together with oil & gas will be disrupted

but your company shouldn't be affected as you can review on all the driverless car :) :)

Post reply on HN