Earlier quoted context omitted.
The utilitarian approach is such an interesting way to frame problems like this. It's obviously wrong for me to murder to my neighbor for their organs, even if those organs could save five other lives. But is it okay for a car company to roll out an AI program if it saves more lives than it costs? When viewed from afar the utilitarian mindset is always so alluring.
I think you're making a bit of a strawman here that people usually do with respect to utilitarianism. The utilitarian answer with 5 people on an island, where 1 is a doctor, 3 need organs, the remaining person has available organs, and the 3 are necessary to keep the group alive -- is to kill the one person and take their organs. However, in a society where people can observe the actions of others and form motivation…
Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
401–410 of 411 posts
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bet you would have said the same thing about a $5,000 personal computer in the early 90s.
I'd bet that if anything, it costs more to own an aircraft now than it does in the 1990s though, that might be a better comparison.
A lot of the regulation that drives the cost of planes up won't apply to cars because of the different economies of scale.
The most popular light aircraft in history is the Cessna 172, and since it was introduced in 1955, only 43,000 have been built. Ever.
By contrast, the most popular vehicle on the road today in the US is the Ford F-series pickup truck. Since being introduced in 1977, Ford has sold 26 million of them. So roughly 600x as many as Cessna has sold 172s over a period of time 20 years longer.
The US market alone was responsible for 17.5 million new cars and trucks being sold last year. Globally, it's approaching 100 million per year. Pretty incredible economies of scale available with that kind of market.
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#403After seeing the movie Logan, I was curious if the movie was taking a jab at the autonomous vehicle trend by portraying them as a danger to ma & pa drivers on the highway. It showed a crowded highway full of shipping containers pushing a truck hauling horses off the road. It seems the message was not that the technology can't be courteous, but that once it's accepted, corporations will abuse the roads to help their b…
> but that once it's accepted, corporations will abuse the roads to help their bottom line Those evil corporations, being all corporate-y! I haven't seen the movie Logan but the gist is that you think BigCorp will modify their cars so they drive dangerously fast, threatening the other non-AI cars on the road? And they will risk killing people or damaging vehicles in order to improve shipping time? And you think this…
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Will car ownership be killed with self-driving cars? Probably. It seems way more convenient and efficient to be able to summon a car to any location on demand than to have just one car that you use for everything. No more parking, no more refueling, no more vehicle maintenance; just push a button and a car shows up within minutes (or in some cases, seconds) to pick you up, and step out of the vehicle when you reach…
No, it won't be efficient. People here simply are not thinking realistically. I want to go out to shop. Right now, I get out in my car, drive for twenty minutes to the mall, and leave when I want to do so. My kid is with me, but on the way back he gets sick, so I have to cut short my drive and head back home. he throws up in the car. I clean it when I get home, and go back out to the store five minutes away by car to…
What makes you say that? The median wait time for an Uber in many cities these days is [around 3 minutes][1]. Were self-driving cars to become widespread, I imagine that time would be significantly reduced due to a drastically higher density of available cars. (Instead of just a few Ubers, imagine if nearly every car on the road could potentially come pick you up.)
> The car reeks of weed, because why not light up a bud? It's not like they can arrest you or anything. I punch in a complaint on the app.
Plausible. Passengers who do that though would most likely get fined the same way you would if you tried that in a rental car, so I don't imagine it'll be widespread. And if you prefer you can always summon another car. Should be there in another 60 seconds or so, if not less. The weed-scented car will head back to dispatch for cleaning so none of its future passengers have to deal with the smell.
> We get to the mall. I shop, and summon a car. This time it takes a little less, maybe five to ten minutes, because the mall is closer to dispatch or a place where a lot of cars get dumped off.
Probably more like seconds because there would be 5 or so cars already waiting in the parking lot for shoppers who might want to leave soon. In fact, it might even be faster than having your own car in this case since the self-driving car can pull right up to the mall exit to pick you up.
> I have to hit the emergency button, and reroute back to my house.
No emergency button necessary, the app lets you change your destination in-flight. Actually, you might even just be able to call out "okay Google, take me home" and the car will hear you and reroute.
> When we get home, I have to hit another button to "rent" the car another period so I can clean it
Well, no. You just report a mess in the car and it drives back to dispatch for cleaning. A bit expensive for you due to cleaning fees sure, but necessary to ensure the car is clean for other passengers, and as a bonus you don't have to clean up the vomit yourself. Hopefully this isn't a regular occurrence for you.
> I now need to go back out to get medicine, but five minutes by car is 30-45 min by walking. So it's another 15 minutes to get a car.
Again, probably 3 at most. More likely under a minute.
> Hell, it could show up at my door full of shit, semen, and vomit, because some homeless guy is using it as his own personal hangout to sleep in.
Again, probably a pretty rare occurrence, and if it does occur all that means is another minute or so of waiting for another car to show up.
> Or it could take even longer because I need to rent a driverless suv so I can bring furniture home to me, and those are relatively rare and command a premium to rent.
SUVs aren't nearly that rare on today's streets. In a driverless car future they might be somewhat more rare because people will only request them when they need the extra trunk space, but even then it's hard to imagine the wait time being more than 10 minutes in even a small city. If you're requesting one from the furniture store it might even show up in seconds (because lots of people coming from that location want SUVs, so a computer algorithm has arranged to have several nearby at all times). If not, you can always schedule a pick up a few minutes in advance to make sure the car is there waiting for you by the time you get out of the store.
[1]: http://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-heres-how-long-it-takes-ge...
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Serious counter question; Why is nobody talking about cost? Cars are very expensive... is self-driving tech going to increase or decrease the cost of a vehicle? Do people generally want more freedom or less freedom choice?" Because you don't need to own the car - you could feasibly rent one on demand (like a taxi), since you can now rent a car without the necessary wage overhead of the taxi driver, or the minimum co…
I live in the suburbs. I have a family with two grade school kids that participate in seasonal team sports and year-round gymnastics. They attend a charter school with no school bus system. Let's say each ride cost $10... that is $20 to $40 per day just for the kids on most weekdays. Add in birthday parties, saturday games, doctor/dentist, trip to grandma/grandpa that live 7 miles away... and we are talking $1000 per…
If the total cost of ownership is, say, $1000 per month, you might only pay $200, or about $2.20 per ride.
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagined as much. Even so, "autopilot sent your car in a spin" vs "autopilot ran into a truck" is a distinction without a difference for the people inside the car.
Tesla warned that driver still should be alert, they implemented warning so driver would keep hands on the wheel etc. NHTSA reported that driver had 7 seconds to react on the truck. In a spin situation because of some bug autopilot would create the problematic situation itself, even if driver will be paying attention to the road.
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but that once it's accepted, corporations will abuse the roads to help their bottom line Those evil corporations, being all corporate-y! I haven't seen the movie Logan but the gist is that you think BigCorp will modify their cars so they drive dangerously fast, threatening the other non-AI cars on the road? And they will risk killing people or damaging vehicles in order to improve shipping time? And you think this…
That was what I gathered from the movie, though I wrong apparently, as someone explained. No where did I put it that I felt that way. I do find a lot of people's desire to take everyone's keys away puzzling, but I don't foresee any cartoonish supervillainy on the highway. It is odd how hyperbolic everyone gets whenever any concern is expressed, you'd think people who've seen the piss-poor code many companies run on w…
Someone brings this up every self-driving car thread. But has there been any incidents caused by code released too early? Google has been working on this for almost a decade and hasn't released anything. Tesla released what is basically a glorified cruise control and deployed an advanced sensor package that is disabled by default.
I'm not seeing this recklessness that everyone is so worried about.
Again, the bar is a system better than current human drivers - as we know for a fact that driver error is one of the leading causes of accidents (over 1/3 of accidents).
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is about the same as "Humans can calculate arithmetic perfectly accurately, why do we need computers to do it for us?" There are a host of obvious reasons why even a "simple" L4 car will beat a human hands down: * Reaction time. * 360 awareness / visibility. * Lack of exaggerated "Human Reflex" to surprising events (i.e. swerving violently to avoid a dog, and hitting other vehicles) * Keeping perfect sp…
Thats not the argument at all. In the attached paper, the author suggested validating driverless vehicle safety within constrained environments, like using beacons on roads. You make an argument like you have a hammer in your hand and you are looking at a row of nails. I'm suggesting it is short-sighted to look at the problem from only that lens. For instance, with a more holistic lens you might explore the right pla…
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you take out alcohol and cell phones, you've reduced 70-80% of driving related fatalities with those two alone.
> if you take out alcohol and cell phones, you've reduced 70-80% of driving related fatalities with those two alone I don't believe that's supported by data. A quick search finds alcohol involved in ~30% of all fatal crashes and cell phones involved in ~20% of all crashes (though probably significantly underreported). Even boosting the cell phone rate by quite a bit, there will still be considerable overlap between t…
Wow these primates are now at the cognitive level of belief? They are evolving much more rapidly than we expected.
Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Humans can calculate arithmetic perfectly accurately, why do we need computers to do it for us?" It's more like humans can think, why should we trust a computer with a task where unforeseen circumstances can arise? Further, if I got the current state correctly, no self-driving car system so far works in rainy conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51qqzFE0rsw