- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Driverless cars could cripple police departments.....those unions will fight
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:30 am to schexyoung
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:30 am to schexyoung
quote:
Meaning the program can't determine an alternative route under the time constrain.
I think we are many decades away from computers being able to effectively determine the various scenario results in the milliseconds necessary to avoid the crash. Crashes are still going to happen. Deaths will still happen. But I'm betting they will be many magnitudes safer than the average driver today. May even be as good a driver as I am at some point in the future...
3
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:31 am to oldcharlie8
quote:
if these cars malfunction and kill one person, the lawsuit will be astronomical.
People malfunction much easier and often.. The lawsuits will be interesting but much less frequent.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:32 am to CptBengal
A couple of days ago I was on Essen trying to turn left onto Perkins, and jackasses from Perkins coming from my right kept blocking the intersection when they'd get a turn signal but not wait for the cars in front of them to clear the intersection.... at least four consecutive arrows were wasted for cars on Essen, who were backed up way beyond the railroad tracks.
I'd be interested to see how driverless cars behave when they get traffic lights and turn signals and have to consider all the other circumstances. Hell, how do they even perceive the turn signals and the circumstances at all? That's some amazing software.
I'd be interested to see how driverless cars behave when they get traffic lights and turn signals and have to consider all the other circumstances. Hell, how do they even perceive the turn signals and the circumstances at all? That's some amazing software.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:34 am to CptBengal
quote:
Approximately 41 million people receive speeding tickets in the U.S. every year, paying out more than $6.2 billion per year, according to statistics from the U.S. Highway Patrol published at StatisticBrain.com. That translates to an estimated $300,000 in speeding ticket revenue per U.S. police officer every year.
Wont stop BRPD or EBSO from setting up seat belt/inspection check points
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:34 am to Rex
quote:
I'd be interested to see how driverless cars behave when they get traffic lights and turn signals and have to consider all the other circumstances. Hell, how do they even perceive the turn signals and the circumstances at all? That's some amazing software.
do some research on google's car...it's amazing, it anticipates everything from other vehicles, how long lights have been green/red, incorporates the timing of the lights to accurately predict the change, monitors bikes, kids on the sidewalk, etc....it's amazing.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:36 am to CptBengal
quote:
computers are MUCH MUCH faster than people.
You're right. Programs NEVER make mistakes.
quote:
If you have a lot of vehicles all being controlled, why would there EVER be an unavoidable collision? Seriously, how does that even work, unless the system CHOSE to have them crash...in which case it wasnt unavoidable.
See above.
quote:
BTW, are you a cop, married to one, or related to one?
Nope, but I do have a close relative with a computer programming and aerospace engineering degree from UF who designs helicopter and fighter jet simulations for the military. He has alot of concerns.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:40 am to C
quote:
I think we are many decades away from computers being able to effectively determine the various scenario results in the milliseconds necessary to avoid the crash. Crashes are still going to happen. Deaths will still happen. But I'm betting they will be many magnitudes safer than the average driver today. May even be as good a driver as I am at some point in the future...
I think the main impediment will be when there's a mix of driverless and human controlled cars in relatively equal numbers.
The cars will be just fine dealing with each other since they'll follow the same rules but, much like when Captain Kirk used to drive the robots insane with his human illogic, dealing with humans all of the time will lead to problems.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:40 am to schexyoung
quote:
You're right. Programs NEVER make mistakes.
they make them FAR FAR less than people.
quote:
I do have a close relative with a computer programming and aerospace engineering degree from UF who designs helicopter and fighter jet simulations for the military. He has alot of concerns.
he believes this will be more/less dangerous than current human operation?
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:42 am to schexyoung
No really driverless cars, but drones in general do concern me. I think someone will design a computer that will think for itself in a few decades and I'm not sure what it will do.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:43 am to schexyoung
People make mistakes more often than programs when it comes to designated requirement acts.. Automated cars will communicate with each other and will figure out traffic patterns that benefit all traffic.. They will declutter the roads through true ride sharing, reducing accidents further. They will revolutionize regional travel and cross country trucking.. They don't drink and drive either or get tied or play on their phones.. This truly is the next big thing that will change the way we operate as a country.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:45 am to C
quote:
No really driverless cars, but drones in general do concern me. I think someone will design a computer that will think for itself in a few decades and I'm not sure what it will do.
Hope they don't call it Skynet.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:46 am to navy
quote:
Hope they don't call it Skynet.
I hope they do. This country needs to get its sense of humor back.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:48 am to Walking the Earth
quote:
This country needs to get its sense of humor back.
Oh ... the country has one.
I'm sure you've heard of Sheila Jackson Lee, for example.
It's just that the laughter is typically followed by tears and/or facepalms.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:49 am to C
quote:
I think we are many decades away from computers being able to effectively determine the various scenario results in the milliseconds necessary to avoid the crash. Crashes are still going to happen. Deaths will still happen. But I'm betting they will be many magnitudes safer than the average driver today. May even be as good a driver as I am at some point in the future...
Dude, a computer can land an airplane on an aircraft carrier. The Space Shuttle was landed on automatic. We sent men to the moon on the computing power of a scientific calculator.
The capability already exists.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:49 am to CptBengal
quote:
why this non-sequitur?
Not an intentional hijack...well, I guess it is...it just seems that you are constantly posting anti-law enforcement threads.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:51 am to DeltaDoc
quote:
seems that you are constantly posting anti-law enforcement threads.
how is this anti law enforcement?
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:53 am to CptBengal
quote:
he believes this will be more/less dangerous than current human operation?
Less dangerous, but much more capable of being manipulated. He has concerns over 'hacking' and the ability to embed decisions modules into the code to protect certain vehicles more so than others either by Google or without Google's consent.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:53 am to elprez00
quote:
The capability already exists.
If it did, we'd already have driverless cars. The question was for a computer to determine the appropriate action for all the cars involved in an unavoidable crash that will likely result in 1 death vs 2. Think about that for a second and think about the number of unknown variables involved to process in likely a tenth of a second. The precision involved would be crazy.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:55 am to schexyoung
quote:
but much more capable of being manipulated. He has concerns over 'hacking' and the ability to embed decisions modules into the code to protect certain vehicles more so than others either by Google or without Google's consent.
hacking exists now....while legit concerns, it shouldnt be an issue.
The best hackers arent evil killers, and they dont work for fedgov.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:57 am to CptBengal
quote:
fedgov
Will be able to take control of your car at the drop of a hat
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News