LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-27-2019, 11:44 AM   #31
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 17
Posts: 5,801
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862Reputation: 2862

Back when I punched a time clock and repaired and maintained robotic pallet movers reading in floor tracks and ran on analog controls even. With analog control center tech.

I would not mind a robotic Pickup Truck/car in the wide expanse of West Texas. But just like those pallet trucks. I wanna be able to take control like when I plugged in the harness and hand control to take that pallet truck off line for Maint. Especially when hitting city traffic.

No wrecks on that old system indoors, though we had one ride off the loading docks cuz the truck pulled out without notifying anyone. After I left. I think they installed a physical way to keep the truck from leaving to keep a similar incident from occurring.


Not a lot of traffic out here sometimes. Easy to nod out at the wheel out here also. Seen it happen a few times with RV drivers. Wrecks were spectacular. RV's explode in the median. Cruise control can be your enemy out here when tired and drowsy.
 
Old 07-27-2019, 12:20 PM   #32
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,487

Rep: Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786Reputation: 1786
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
There was a "security driver" at the wheel who was supposed to take over if something like this happened, but she was not watching the road because she trusted the technology.
...
It looks as if the driver will be charged with negligent manslaughter or whatever the American equivalent is. In other words, she will be the sacrificial lamb thrown to the angry relatives to appease them.
Yeah, it's basically impossible for a human to pay attention for hours on end without actually doing anything. It seems like the "security drivers" are there soley to be liable when something bad (inevitably) happens.

Quote:
Uber will not be charged with anything, even though it was their car, their AI driving it, and they who disabled the car's built-in safety features.
That (especially the last part) seems pretty ridiculous to me.
 
Old 07-27-2019, 12:27 PM   #33
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,144
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670
What happened, according to Click, was that the built-in system proved incompatible with the AI. That's why they disabled it.
 
Old 07-27-2019, 12:31 PM   #34
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 304

Rep: Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
{...}There was a "security driver" at the wheel who was supposed to take over if something like this happened, but she was not watching the road because she trusted the technology.{...}
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
{...} And the woman at the wheel was not necessarily an incompetent driver. What she was was a passenger.{...}
She was driver not passenger. All search engine results and even wikia material says and even uber homepage writes she was behind wheel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
Yeah, it's basically impossible for a human to pay attention for hours on end without actually doing anything. It seems like the "security drivers" are there soley to be liable when something bad (inevitably) happens.{...}
It is possible. During day time it is easier to distract ourselves from driving cause see more and further and from one portion of look can get enough info to predict that nothing will happen if and can take away eyes longer, but if might happen then not look away. However when night time then this look away time is shorter. I know what i talk when it comes to driving. My work required me to drive a lot and for long periods of time with and without cargo. As i already wrote human brain operates very similar to computer. Our driving style is learned very similar way AI would learn.

Last edited by Arcane; 07-27-2019 at 12:32 PM. Reason: more
 
Old 07-27-2019, 12:49 PM   #35
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,144
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
She was driver not passenger. All search engine results and even wikia material says and even uber homepage writes she was behind wheel.
That was not what I meant. Of course she was behind the wheel, that was her job. She was supposed to take over instantly if anything went wrong and she could hardly do that from a back seat. The point I was making was that psychologically she was a passenger. She was not driving, she was being driven.
Quote:
when night time then this look away time is shorter. I know what i talk when it comes to driving. My work required me to drive a lot and for long periods of time with and without cargo.
Exactly! You were driving the car. She was not. I have no experience of driving myself, but I can readily believe that an active driver will concentrate on the road more at night when the lighting is bad. That makes sense. What does not make sense is to expect the same level of concentration from someone who is not actually driving and probably does not believe that she will ever need to take over the wheel.
 
Old 07-29-2019, 03:26 AM   #36
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 304

Rep: Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302
@hazel
I watched video footage about this event after i posted replies and i was correct. This accident is not fault of self-driving car. On the contrary if self driving car would be used it would prevent accident. Since you wrote in your signature you are "old" that means you need someone who explains this in slow pace and with clear voice. Have a look at this video and watch it fully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5vbjl3TNEE
This is not fault of self driving vehicles but human error using them. That woman got killed cause Uber failed to hire proper driver and should not have disabled safety systems other companies enable.
 
Old 07-29-2019, 06:04 AM   #37
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,315

Rep: Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332
While this may be true....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
This is not fault of self driving vehicles but human error using them. That woman got killed cause Uber failed to hire proper driver and should not have disabled safety systems other companies enable.
THIS would be hilarious if it wasn't also crude, offensive, and a mistaken assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
@hazel
Since you wrote in your signature you are "old" that means you need someone who explains this in slow pace and with clear voice. Have a look at this video and watch it fully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5vbjl3TNEE
Another perfect example of how you, Arcane, leap to wrong conclusions without evidence and often contrary to existing evidence.. just going along with cliches and silly assumptions. Of course there are some old people who are slow but there are also young people who are slow and conversely many old people who have won Nobel Prizes, conceived great works in Art and every other field of human endeavor and sometimes, utterly changed the course of History.

I'm likely older than hazel, approaching my 73rd birthday. Do I strike you as "slow"? or lacking in experience?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Pryor as Mudbone
They're ain't no such thing as "old fool". You don't get to BE old bein' no fool. A lotta young smart ass is deader than shit!
 
Old 07-29-2019, 06:20 AM   #38
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 304

Rep: Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
{...}Another perfect example of how you, Arcane, leap to wrong conclusions without evidence and often contrary to existing evidence..{...}
What perfect example? It is obvious to me we don't understand each other POV and context cause i don't leap into wrong conclusions without evidence otherwise i would be wrong and i am not (c)rude, offensive and mistaken. She wrote about accident without analysing what really happened but based on outcome title "uber self driving car hits pedestrian" etc. and without driving basics understanding which i have. I tried to explain to her in normal way that it was not fault of car that pedestrian got killed but she insisted that it could be fault of self-driving vehicle cause safety driver was relaxed and trusting car. It still wasn't fault of car. Since i know most people live in USA i gave video with USA citizens explaining same points i made. It is human error using them not self-driving vehicle concept in general. Driver is also at fault just like those who disabled safety systems. Just like other accidents:
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...g+car+accident
It all comes down to human error in those situations. One is texting, other is watching Harry Poter, third is not listening to safety warnings and so on. I have yet to see any accident where self-driving car with all systems working properly is truly at fault. All of those drivers where informed before they stepped into car that car does not have yet true driving AI so caution is mandatory.

Last edited by Arcane; 07-29-2019 at 06:23 AM. Reason: more
 
Old 07-29-2019, 06:27 AM   #39
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,315

Rep: Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332
Arcane, had you been paying attention, you would see that yours and my conclusions about self-driving cars are somewhat similar. I don't think they are, as the thread title says "accidents waiting to happen", at least on a level greater than accidents already do occur with human drivers. My argument with your words and line of "reasoning" is jumping to the conclusion, not only that hazel is old and slow, but that ALL old people are slow and require some young person to speak slowly and clearly to get a grasp on anything. That is not only ignorant... that is stupid, and yes.. crude, offensive and mistaken... just like this last remark of mine (for demonstration purposes only, of course) about "stupid" qualifies for two of those.

Last edited by enorbet; 07-29-2019 at 06:29 AM.
 
Old 07-29-2019, 06:47 AM   #40
dc.901
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2018
Location: Atlanta, GA - USA
Distribution: CentOS 6-7; SuSE 8-12
Posts: 573

Rep: Reputation: 163Reputation: 163
Some of the posts I feel like are comparing apples with oranges. May be my miss-understanding.

I think better question here is:
- if we have dedicated lanes for self-driving vehicles and dedicated lanes for non-self-driving vehicles. Which do you all think will have more accidents?

Now, I know, chances of this actually happening (dedicated lanes) are slim to none, but I feel like humans are worse at driving, with all the distractions! And, yes I also know that us humans are writing code for self-driving cars; and I am sure in early releases self-driving cars are not perfect but over time, I am sure they will improve.

Last edited by dc.901; 07-29-2019 at 06:54 AM.
 
Old 07-29-2019, 06:57 AM   #41
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 304

Rep: Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302Reputation: 302
enorbet, i think what happened is same misunderstanding as with rokytnji in faith thread. It is misunderstanding of context of posting. Just like rokytnji was not trying to make me insulter but i misunderstood as if would be, i was not insulting hazel while you thought i was insulting when i was simply trying to deliver same message differently cause it was obvious some people do not understand driving world basics. Self driving car sensors detect more than human eyes see. And i did have grandparents so my post is not entirely wrong. Older people do take it slower.
 
Old 07-29-2019, 07:05 AM   #42
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,315

Rep: Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
enorbet, i think what happened is same misunderstanding as with rokytnji in faith thread. It is misunderstanding of context of posting. Just like rokytnji was not trying to make me insulter but i misunderstood as if would be, i was not insulting hazel while you thought i was insulting when i was simply trying to deliver same message differently cause it was obvious some people do not understand driving world basics. Self driving car sensors detect more than human eyes see. And i did have grandparents so my post is not entirely wrong. Older people do take it slower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
@hazel
Since you wrote in your signature you are "old" that means you need someone who explains this in slow pace and with clear voice.
Hmmm.... seems clear to me you are "back-pedaling" now. Maybe it's just that I'm old and slow
 
Old 07-29-2019, 07:43 AM   #43
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,144
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670Reputation: 1670
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post

I'm likely older than hazel, approaching my 73rd birthday. Do I strike you as "slow"? or lacking in experience?
Ha, ha! I'm still older. I had my 74th last week.
 
Old 07-29-2019, 08:11 AM   #44
petelq
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Distribution: openSUSE(Leap and Tumbleweed) and a regularly changing third
Posts: 385

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Ha, ha! I'm still older. I had my 74th last week.
I'm feeling quite the youngster at only 70. Thanks.
 
Old 07-29-2019, 08:19 AM   #45
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, Vsido, tinycore, Q4OS
Posts: 2,978

Rep: Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271Reputation: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Ha, ha! I'm still older. I had my 74th last week.
For the win: Hazel! ;-)


Back to the point: Once it gets "good enough" I can see that AI might be far safer than a fallible, frail human when controlling what amounts to a one ton bullet. (Our current annual highway death toll speaks to the wisdom of seeking a better option!) It does not have to be perfect, it just has to be enough better than WE are for the choice to be clear. That might not take much.

The U.S. almost abandoned better national mass transit options in favor of the family auto and the national highway system. IT is beginning to become clear that this model may not be sustainable over the long run. Automated mass transit may be key to our national transit systems of year 2100+! I wish those of us on this thread could be alive to observe THAT change. It should be (excuse the term) a wild ride!
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Self-driving cars Fixit7 General 42 07-14-2016 07:57 AM
LXer: Nvidia unveils Drive PX 2 platform for self-driving cars LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-08-2016 01:21 AM
LXer: Nvidia tears wraps off GeForce Titan X (again) and $10,000 GPU brain for DIY self-driving cars LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-17-2015 08:50 PM
LXer: A software developers perspective on Google's self-driving cars (video) LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-14-2013 04:40 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration