Discussion about hot topics trending today

[mad_gater]

False

So you say. But I haven't met a computer yet that could carry out an autonomic reflexive response and think outside the box on the fly the way a human being can.

[Annoyed]

bah just give it a couple o centuries & those cars will be smarter than us

btw another one a few weeks back:
https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/28/...car-collision/



anyway this should be interesting cause now the question will be, who's held responsible?

And that there is going to be the brick wall for these infernal contraptions. (As I've pointed out before)
Once companies realize that they will be liable for the mayhem these things cause, they will drop them like hot potatoes.

[Annoyed]

Normal human reflexes (ones that haven't been dulled by drink or other form of drug) are actually insanely fast. Normal human reflexes can have us responding to an unexpected obstacle in the blink of an eye. Computers can crunch numbers and process data a lot faster than we can. However computers don't have the capacity to carry out reflexive responses. The human capacity to carry out a reflexive response to an unexpected situation in the blink of an eye is not something that I believe can be effectively reduced to binary 1's and zero's in a computer's memory chip.

And that is why autonomous cars are a foolish endeavor at our current level of computer development. You cannot predict the driving environment, and if you can't predict it, you can't program a response for it.

[Annoyed]

And that there is going to be the brick wall for these infernal contraptions. (As I've pointed out before)
Once companies realize that they will be liable for the mayhem these things cause, they will drop them like hot potatoes.

[EDIT]
Oh, and lookie here. One can only hope.
Self-driving Uber crash could open the company to criminal charges

Sunday night's deadly crash in Arizona involving a self-driving Uber SUV could leave the ridesharing company vulnerable to criminal charges under new rules enacted earlier this month by the state's governor.

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey used light regulations to entice Uber to the state after the company experienced a shaky rollout of test cars in neighboring California, and hundreds of vehicles with automated driving systems have been on the state's roads.

But on March 1, Ducey signed an executive order creating a detailed rules and licensing system for the vehicles. Under the new rules, a spokesman for the governor told the Phoenix New Times, a company that operates a self-driving vehicle would be held responsible if it negligently killed someone during testing. According to the paper, the company could even be held criminally liable in the same manner a person would.

With any luck, we'll see a cadre of Uber executives sentenced to prison. That ought to put a stop to this foolish nonsense.

[jelgate]

They said the same thing about the steam engine. Those horse driven trains are much safer than steam engines. Good thing those devil engines never happened

[SoulReaver]

With any luck, we'll see a cadre of Uber executives sentenced to prison

the executives don't call the shots unless you mean the chief executive (but even he has to obey the chairman & the board (but then they have to obey the main shareholders (but they're like, uber-rich)))

[Coco Pops]

So, one person dies from a driverless car, and you pull the pin?

Must be one of those new fangled luddite people. They don't like machines I hear.

[mad_gater]

They said the same thing about the steam engine. Those horse driven trains are much safer than steam engines. Good thing those devil engines never happened

comparing apples to oranges I see

steam engines aren't governed solely by COMPUTERS like these stupid cars are

[Gatefan1976]

comparing apples to oranges I see

steam engines aren't governed solely by COMPUTERS like these stupid cars are

No, they are governed solely by MECHANICS instead.........

[jelgate]

MG missed the point. It's one of the oldest stories where people fear technology and think the old way is better. I purposely used an extreme example

[Annoyed]

MG missed the point. It's one of the oldest stories where people fear technology and think the old way is better. I purposely used an extreme example

At this point in our development of computer technology, the old way IS better. Maybe in a couple of hundred years, our tech will be on the level with that we see in Star Trek and the other Sci Fi shows we watch, and this will be safe. But we ain't there yet. It's still FICTION.

[jelgate]

With your thinking, we'll never be there

[Gatefan1976]

MG missed the point. It's one of the oldest stories where people fear technology and think the old way is better. I purposely used an extreme example

Not that extreme really.

[SoulReaver]

the advent of the HALO device should be also interesting

[mad_gater]

You think computers would be so superior at driving because they don't drink alcohol or take drugs. But computers can have a whole host of other bad things happen to them. They can be hacked, they can malfunction, their circuits could fry, a strong EMP pulse could shut them down, all right in the middle of being driven somewhere. Again, computers will never be able to express human reflexes and intuition on-the-fly. Buck Rogers had the same problem when flying with a fighter squadron to take out some marauders. Their automated targeting computers were crap and so Buck switched to manual and managed to take out all the marauders. Losing some data in a computer crash is one thing, but computers should never be used in a situation where an OS crash could mean that people get seriously hurt or killed. What you call being "afraid" of technology I call exercising a healthy dose of common sense, something that I can see is sorely lacking in modern times.