Arizonians Are Physically Attacking Self-Driving Cars to Protect Themselves and Loved Ones

a reply to: projectvxn

Brother, I am hardly hysterical about this…

I built cars and worked on the Lisa, Commodore, and the very first and last computers, so I am as technological as the next scientist or technician…no big thing.

Until you can make a computer faster/smarter or more aware than a human, it will suck and crash, and people will get killed.

Humans adapt.

What about in Florida, where people drive 85mph.

When you don't, you are in danger.

It will probably not speed and will be a threat to everyone else.

originally posted by: KiwiNite
The issue with AI is that just before accident when it will have to chose who to save it most likely will chose to go with option that will allow it to save itself not some human that is about to crash.
It might be taught to do otherwise but we already saw how tricky and cheaty AI can be.
Unless I'm wrong and self driving cars don't employ neural/learning networks.

If I and / or my family are passengers in the self driving car then save me and FU. I don't want some ephemeral greater good programmed into the AI deciding I should die so you can live. Nope, not happening and I imagine a lot would feel the same.

link

In 1979, Douglas Hofstadter, an American cognitive scientist, formulated a useful general rule that applies to all complex tasks. Hofstadter’s lawsays that “It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s law”. It may not have the epistemological status of Newton’s first law, but it is “good enough for government work”, as the celebrated computer scientist Roger Needham used to say.

But if you’re wondering why it might be 2050 before they’re a common sight on every street, then there are two obvious answers. One is that chance and human nature will ensure that the number of conceivable edge cases is very large (if not infinite). The other is that Hofstadter’s law will apply to this technology, just as it applies to everything else.

My point is self-driving cars will be very limited for a LONG TIME, I knew that intuitively... above is proof.

Just because they say and brag..." oh we have 5 million miles of tests" don't amount to zoot when you consider scaling this technology.

a reply to: Mandroid7

I'm not an Oracle.

And I'm still right about bitcoin and blockchain.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: projectvxn

Brother, I am hardly hysterical about this…

I built cars and worked on the Lisa, Commodore, and the very first and last computers, so I am as technological as the next scientist or technician…no big thing.

Sorry?
The very last computers?
Computers have stopped progressing sometime in the past?
That right there is a big red flag as to the majority of your claims over the years.
Let alone in this thread.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

You don’t know much about PC’s do you?

The IBM compatible PC HAS BEEN PRACTICALLY THE SAME FOR YEARS
Do you know the first ones?

The only thing that changes now is the processor

Remember, 286, 386, 486, 466 Celoron...Pentium...etc

Sort of like the automobile which hasn't changed much in 40 years

that's what I mean, don't be so literal

a reply to: Willtell

Sorry. I do not buy off the shelf computers.
You sir (or madam), need to take a step back and realize things are changing at breakneck speed.

When communicating by text, the only thing we have to go on is written language.
Just a tip, to help in your further communications on this site. As well as others you may belong to.

And if you think the automobile hasn't changed much in 40 years, you are beyond us speaking as peers. As in the last 20 years it has become completely different than when I started driving. Just by it's computer interface, as well as additional safety features.
Let's not mention the different tell tales on the dash. Computers I need to buy to work on the car myself. ETC. . .

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

No, I was wrong the automobile hasn’t changed in 100 years!

And if you knew anything about technology you would know that

It's still a gas guzzling, on the most part, pile of dangerous metals


You are so smart you will argue with someone who ONLY has worked on cars and computers for decades

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

No, I was wrong the automobile hasn’t changed in 100 years!

And if you knew anything about technology you would know that

It's still a gas guzzling, on the most part, pile of dangerous metals


You are so smart you will argue with someone who ONLY has worked on cars and computers for decades

Nope. I'm so smart I will stay away from further communications with you on this thread.
I hope that placates your ego.

jalopnik.com/bro-truck-owners-are-deliberately-blocking-tesla-superc-1831322063

jalopnik.com...


Bro Trucks Blocking Tesla Charging Stations

en.m.wikipedia.org...
I know Wikipedia but it’s source is The National Highway Traffic Admistration.
102 deaths a day
37,471 deaths for the year(2016)
3,613,732 Deaths from 1899-2013
All causes by humans.

With those numbers I say bring on the self driving cars. Hell, make them manditoary.
Cars have changed, my dads old pick up truck didn’t even have seat belts those were extra. The wheel was metal and would sheer your head off in a collision. My truck is not only made of entirely different material everything about is different then his even the rubber wheels. Air bags,crumple points, suspension, it even can run flex fuel so it’s fuel has changed. I’d be hard pressed to find another similarity beside the fact that both have four wheels.

Look around the only thing that hasn’t changed in your car is you.

a reply to: Willtell

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Mandroid7

I'm not an Oracle.

And I'm still right about bitcoin and blockchain.

Bitcoin crashed like I said it would.
-Once it was allowed to be traded it was done.

Blockchain has potential, but still 'noids me out with the record of everything it makes.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

No, I was wrong the automobile hasn’t changed in 100 years!

And if you knew anything about technology you would know that

It's still a gas guzzling, on the most part, pile of dangerous metals


You are so smart you will argue with someone who ONLY has worked on cars and computers for decades

Nope. I'm so smart I will stay away from further communications with you on this thread.
I hope that placates your ego.

Perhaps then you can explain to us all exactly just how has the automobile changed over the last 100 years, we can clearly see that they have become safer and more efficient, other than that though there are basically the same, unless of course I'm totally missing your point..

originally posted by: Athetos
en.m.wikipedia.org...
I know Wikipedia but it’s source is The National Highway Traffic Admistration.
102 deaths a day
37,471 deaths for the year(2016)
3,613,732 Deaths from 1899-2013
All causes by humans.

With those numbers I say bring on the self driving cars. Hell, make them manditoary.


a reply to: Willtell

So cars are faster and more dangerous, especially with more people in the road and your answer is to remove the human driver equation.

You anti freedom types scare the hell out of me, especially when you try and fly under the banner of less government and more freedoms...

Just so you know, intuition is a dangerous thing to rely on without science and data. You could read articles or cite sources or something. It turns out what we *think* is correct is often not the way things are. Everyone makes that mistake, though. I'll go watch your videos though and see what they have to say.

a reply to: Willtell

LOL,I lived in Ahwatukee Arizona for a short while,everyday on the news someone attacked one of those cameras,so nothing surprises me more,crazy folk live out in desert

a reply to: Willtell

A human behind the wheel is much more dangerous. A computer will never drive drunk or distracted by its phone.
This is so silly and backwards and all in all just crazy. Attacking cars? Wtf?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MisterSpock

Technophobes have always existed.

I've had mechanical engineers tell me that electronics is black magic and they hate it.

The truth is that this stuff isn't really that hard.

I am no technophobe but I looooooove driving. It seems the new cottonwool wrapped generation doesn't want fun. Couldn't care less if some people (elderly, dissbled etc) get themselves a nanny car but it won't stop there will it?

As to the inane comparison about sccidents. If the handful of these self driving cars already killed one person and had numerous accidents, imagine scaling them up to the same amount of normal cars. Mayhem would ensue.


Yeah, these fun stealing safe space nanny cars are not ready to be unleashed yet.

Last year I attended two insurance conferences where session speakers said that self-driving cars were here to stay and would take over the roads over the next 5-10 years - so the car insurance industry needed to start getting ready for this now. Put simply there is a huge amount of investment being pumped into this and some great strides are being made. As one speaker put it, if one human crashes a car that human (if they survive) will have learnt a lesson, but if an AI car crashes then a hundred thousand cars will learn that same lesson.
This brings me to something that has increasingly been troubling me. We need to stop asking if something could be done and start asking if something should be done. Because self-driving cars will indeed reduce the number of driving-related jobs and will change society in a number of meaningful ways.