U.S. tells Google computers can qualify as drivers

This is the beginning of the end. Insurance companies will hike premiums for people who decide to "manually drive" instead of using computer "automated drivers". Eventually everyone will use automated drivers except for the rich elite who we'll all look down on for "recklessly endangering lives by driving manually"

I don't think fully autonomously.

There was a "driver" in the car at all times that would presumably bear legal definitions of driver.


This ruling means that the computer fits the bill legally.

Aka, you don't legally need to watch the road to possibly "step in" the government will accept the notion that a computer can fully fulfill that role.

quote:

---

to possibly "step in" the government will accept the notion that a computer can fully fulfill that role

---

Oh, I never thought humans should be able to "step in". That's what messes things up from the calculated harmony.

360 airbags and sorry about the neighbors dog

quote:

---

A car piloted by a 286 processor with a 40MB hard drive would be an improvement over 98% of Louisiana drivers.

---

The only problem, is that computers frick-up as well, they crash, and they can be hacked. In theory, it's a good idea. In practice, the verdict remains to be seen.

I know we talk about it from time to time on the OT and more so in other websites but if you read up on it and pay attention to the advances being made right now, thiings are getting very very interesting in the field of AI

It is interesting but it will never fully take over. Some OTers act like it will be mandatory to be in an automated vehichle. I really can't see that.

quote:

---

The only problem, is that computers frick-up as well

---

not as much as the other option

quote:

---

they crash,

---

so far they've only been crashed into, by a non-computer

quote:

---

they can be hacked

---

this is a concern, but I believe that any car with onstar can be hacked right now.

quote:

---

Hacker Disables More Than 100 Cars Remotely

More than 100 drivers in Austin, Texas found their cars disabled or the horns honking out of control, after an intruder ran amok in a web-based vehicle-immobilization system normally used to get the attention of consumers delinquent in their auto payments.

---

LINK /


so it wouldn't be a new developement

quote:

---

The only problem, is that computers frick-up as well, they crash, and they can be hacked. In theory, it's a good idea. In practice, the verdict remains to be seen.

---

Google's cars haven't caused any crashes yet, and they have driven millions of miles. All of the accidents were caused by a human driver.

quote:

---

The only problem, is that computers frick-up as well, they crash

---

Your laptop doesn't have nearly the failsafes that will be required of self-driving cars. Plus all of the software that you install on your PC has a big affect on crashes. I think that I'm a well above average driver (though I figure most people think of themselves that way). I don't text and drive. I use my blinkers all of the time. I always obey the 2 second rule when behind another driver. I still trust computers to drive better than I can. By a wide margin. I can't wait for self driving cars, assuming that the Fedgov allows drunkards to use them. Unfortunately, I suspect that bullshite rules will be implemented to protect police departments that rely on DUIs as well as the cab unions/Ubers of the world.

I do agree that hacks could frick shite up. But all new cars have computers as is, so I don't think that's much of a change.

Almost 34k deaths per year caused by traffic accidents.

I welcome computer automation in motor vehicles.