Self-driving car discussion catch-all

I very much like mulling these questions. I think they're important!

Shouldn't the robot calculate the individual salaries of the people before deciding?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Shouldn't the robot calculate the individual salaries of the people before deciding?

Simple fix: program/hack your robocar to input your salary as $999,999,999,999.

MeatMan wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Shouldn't the robot calculate the individual salaries of the people before deciding?

Simple fix: program/hack your robocar to input your salary as $999,999,999,999.

Hope they have proper bounds checking and you don't end up as NaN.

I don't know, being NaN could be a great way to survive the robopocalypse.

Gremlin wrote:

But your properly designed car is unlikely to ever choose to kill you.

More to the point, even if it does, it's orders of magnitude less likely than some oblivious moron choosing to steer his car into you.

Jonman wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

But your properly designed car is unlikely to ever choose to kill you.

More to the point, even if it does, it's orders of magnitude less likely than some oblivious moron choosing to steer his car into you.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/StephenKing-Christine.jpg)

I just saw the first two Ghost in the Shell prequel OVAs last night.

Spoiler:

When traffic grid gets hacked and 20 million automobiles grind to a halt...

I kept thinking about this thread.

Tanglebones wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

But your properly designed car is unlikely to ever choose to kill you.

More to the point, even if it does, it's orders of magnitude less likely than some oblivious moron choosing to steer his car into you.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/StephenKing-Christine.jpg)

IMAGE(http://www.the-losthighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/maxshirt1.jpg)

Google's New Driverless Car Has No Brake Pedal Or Steering Wheel

I'm entirely in favor of an automated car, as I'm under no illusion that I have any special skill as a driver. But I would never, ever buy a car that didn't have a full manual control system as a backup. I'd be perfectly happy to never touch it, but I would absolutely insist on it being there. There's that old saw about having something and not needing it, after all....

Dr_Awkward wrote:

I wonder how insurance requirements for self driving cars will shake out as the technology gets dialed in.

This is the way I think it will play out: you will still be liable for anything bad that happens when your car is involved and declared 'at fault', just like you are now. But insurance for an automated car will be way cheaper.

Manufacturers will probably have to maintain an umbrella liability policy of some kind, especially in the early years, because the law in this area isn't really settled. But I suspect that, barring some truly egregious fault by a car maker, it'll work out that everyone will carry insurance, exactly the way they do now, and things will be settled the same way. It will cost less, but will function the way we're used to.

I guess I should watch the video. I always thought the self driving cars would still have a steering wheel/pedals for parking/driveway navigation. I can understand the concept of going address to address based on the GPS coords of the address, but you are assuming google maps or whatever they are using as the source is right (surprise, it is often not) and how does that help you navigate a parking garage, or your friend's lawn when his driveway is full for a party? I looked at the self driving cars as you get on the interstate or major road and set the autonomous mode and then when you get off or back to your street you turn it off, kind of like the telecom 'last mile' problem - it would still be human-driven.

I think the consumer cars are going to have steering wheels for quite some time. The car Google is showing off is technically a low-speed vehicle, which has a bunch of restrictions, including a top speed of 25 MPH.

Malor wrote:
Google's New Driverless Car Has No Brake Pedal Or Steering Wheel

I'm entirely in favor of an automated car, as I'm under no illusion that I have any special skill as a driver. But I would never, ever buy a car that didn't have a full manual control system as a backup. I'd be perfectly happy to never touch it, but I would absolutely insist on it being there. There's that old saw about having something and not needing it, after all....

Dr_Awkward wrote:

I wonder how insurance requirements for self driving cars will shake out as the technology gets dialed in.

This is the way I think it will play out: you will still be liable for anything bad that happens when your car is involved and declared 'at fault', just like you are now. But insurance for an automated car will be way cheaper.

Manufacturers will probably have to maintain an umbrella liability policy of some kind, especially in the early years, because the law in this area isn't really settled. But I suspect that, barring some truly egregious fault by a car maker, it'll work out that everyone will carry insurance, exactly the way they do now, and things will be settled the same way. It will cost less, but will function the way we're used to.

My guess is that there will be insurance premium stuff based on things like if you keep the software up to date and how many non-robot drivers are in your area.

I'll have to look for sources, but I think Google has taken the position that the manufacturer is at fault for programming the car. Which is both clever marketing and clever first-mover positioning.

This is a different vision, I think, coming from their real life experience with self driving tech. They mention having encountered problems when the presumption is that humans will take over driving from the car, and you can imagine what might happen if a distracted passenger is suddenly asked to take over in an emergent situation; confusion, bad choices, inattention, and bad things will happen. This would be bad, and people would blame the tech rather than the paradigm.

Maybe it could be a service. If you need to go somewhere, the car can come get you, and drop you off, coming back when you need it. No need to park the thing, no need for ownership. Could revolutionize cities, neighborhoods, etc. It's super exciting to see.

As I understand it, parking is basically a solved problem. I even read that self-parking standard cars are likely to be a Thing before generally self-driving cars become standard. So needing steering wheels for parking shouldn't be a consideration.

As for the situation where Google Maps is wrong, you would presumably have a way to reprogram it to take the correct route or go to the correct location, as you do with Google Maps anyway. So it'd only be a problem in a case where, say, GMaps doesn't note the existence of a road that does actually exist, or something like that.

Demyx wrote:

As I understand it, parking is basically a solved problem. I even read that self-parking standard cars are likely to be a Thing before generally self-driving cars become standard. So needing steering wheels for parking shouldn't be a consideration.

As for the situation where Google Maps is wrong, you would presumably have a way to reprogram it to take the correct route or go to the correct location, as you do with Google Maps anyway. So it'd only be a problem in a case where, say, GMaps doesn't note the existence of a road that does actually exist, or something like that.

I expect that the immediate sensors will override any map data, so the car won't drive you off a cliff just because Google Maps doesn't list it.

Yeah I believe parking is a solved problem as far as you can pull up to a space, position a box on a camera display and tell the car to park there. I was talking more about the situations of actually getting to the spot or 'non traditional' spaces like a driveway or pulling into a garage, or parking on a lawn or in a field. Going through a drive-through to get a milkshake.

I tried telling you that we can't trust Congress with driverless cars...

Rudderless Congress breaks driverless car

Video showing some more self driving

Wow... I was impressed at first that they got out of the cars... but at ~2:05 I was shocked. I knew that was possible, but to do it that way was ballsy and eye opening.

Yes, much bursting.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Yes, much bursting.

Very comfort, much bursting, so love. Wow!

I have seen article on many sites today about the self driving cars being in accidents. Stuff like

4 self-driving cars have been in accidents in California since Sept.

Self-Driving Cars Are Already Getting Into Accidents

They are trying to make it sound scary with quotes like "Still, 4 out of 50 cars getting into accidents is an unsettlingly high percentage, and it underscores how patchy automated car technology still is, especially when these futuristic vehicles are driving around our imperfect streets."

But whenever I follow the data I see that "Google and Delphi said their cars were not at fault in any accidents" and "In the October accident involving Delphi, the front of its 2014 Audi SQ5 was moderately damaged when, as it waited to make a left turn, another car broadsided it, according to an accident report the company shared with AP."

So a self driving car is hit while stopped and this means automated car technology is patchy? WTF? It really stuck me as so stupid I don't even know why it is reported.

Fear sells.

Nevin73 wrote:

Fear sells.

But who's buying?

*Legion* wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Fear sells.

But who's buying?

Maybe Vic Rattlehead?

IMAGE(http://s30.postimg.org/gl9hl2xqp/image.jpg)

farley3k wrote:

I have seen article on many sites today about the self driving cars being in accidents. Stuff like

4 self-driving cars have been in accidents in California since Sept.

Self-Driving Cars Are Already Getting Into Accidents

They are trying to make it sound scary with quotes like "Still, 4 out of 50 cars getting into accidents is an unsettlingly high percentage, and it underscores how patchy automated car technology still is, especially when these futuristic vehicles are driving around our imperfect streets."

But whenever I follow the data I see that "Google and Delphi said their cars were not at fault in any accidents" and "In the October accident involving Delphi, the front of its 2014 Audi SQ5 was moderately damaged when, as it waited to make a left turn, another car broadsided it, according to an accident report the company shared with AP."

So a self driving car is hit while stopped and this means automated car technology is patchy? WTF? It really stuck me as so stupid I don't even know why it is reported.

This is why I can't stand the news... my parents always wonder why I don't pay attention and it is because of this. Literally cannot trust the news to get basic facts correct.