LogFAQs > #952667043

LinkPizza posted...

If you go with something cheaper and older, itll be less. But why would they install the older model that will be outdated in stores.

Because it's cheaper. You literally just stated the reason yourself.

Asking "Why would you buy an iPhone 6 when there's a whatever-the-latest-iPhone-available-now right next to it on the shelf?" is a bit like asking, "Why would you buy a Honda Civic when you could just go down to your local Lamborghini dealer and buy yourself a Huracan?"

LinkPizza posted...

Except I dont think theyll recognize all that all the time. I think they are mostly sensing the objects around to see when to stop or steer away. But I dont see them seeing a person looking a little sleepy and then honking to give them a shock to wake up, and maybe pull over. And thats if it notices them nodding off. Because it could be someone who looks awake, but is sleep. Or they could think someone who head is all the way back on the headrest is asleep, when they just sit like that

There are literally car technologies today that will warn you if it detects signs of you getting sleepy. Those signs are as subtle as taking too long to blink or breathing in a way that suggests you're falling asleep.

This is a really bad example for you to pick, because we're not even talking hypothetical tech right now. Here's an NYT article on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/automobiles/wheels/drowsy-driving-technology.html

LinkPizza posted...

The theory is very possible, though.

It's not and you've literally just admitted you can't prove it or even support it with any sort of exercise or analysis that's been done to date. You're literally just making up things that have no basis in reality. It's pointless to continue this particular thread of the discussion, because you are now firmly in the realm of fantasy, not reality.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. It is. But the accident may not happen immediately after they steer to avoid. It could have a couple of seconds before it happens. And because the car that caused it wasnt hit, it may not know that it was the car that caused the accident. The human may not be paying attention. Or was so focus on what almost happened that he doesnt know (or doesnt know that (s)he caused) an accident somewhere else. It happens fast, but it might not know if its far away enough. Well, it might know about the accident, but not that it caused it. Its also a problem if a human was the one that was hit by a self-driving car that was trying to avoid getting hit. Because it could be a mix of humans and self-driving vehicles on the road together. And humans do leave, but we would want the AI to be better. If they arent, then they start to become kind of useless

Literally everything you just stated is every bit as applicable for humans as AI. Moreso, honestly, given that humans don't have constant 360 degree vision and perfect attention to the road around it.

And we've already been over that AI *are* better in this area. They have cameras and sensors onboard that can pick up what happened and who is at fault far more reliably than a human can. The fact that you've had to contort yourself to concoct an incredibly unlikely scenario wherein a human and an AI are on equal ground - not even where an AI is inferior, but just where it is on equal ground with a human - shows how much better AI are than humans in terms of their behaviour and capabilities regarding accidents.

You're couching it in different language, but your argument is essentially that AI have to be perfect or else they're not worth it. That's not the case - they just need to be better than us. Not even in everything, but better overall. And they are - they're less prone to get into accidents, they don't break the law, they don't drive drunk, and they don't get distracted or sleepy while driving. That alone puts them worlds ahead of humans.

LinkPizza posted...

The topic was from 3 years ago.

If it's from that long ago, why are you still expecting me to remember it in detail?

There's enough to talk about in this topic without dragging up a years-old discussion.

LinkPizza posted...

Because its fit what they want, or think they need. Whats sad it nobody seems to be thinking about people in wheelchairs.

Of course they're thinking about people in wheelchairs - that's literally part of urban planning. You can't *not* think about people in wheelchairs, because that is big-time illegal and opening yourself up to major liability. People with disabilities are entitled to the same level of service as an able-bodied person and are allowed to sue if they do not receive it.

...and yet, the self-driving buses are here and rolling, which tells me they've already come to that bridge and crossed it successfully, because no city would ever willingly open themselves up to that level of liability if they hadn't.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!