Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
agree, and why would I as the driver want that? why would i give the machine the choice to injure me and/or my passenger 1st? i wouldn't and i think if people are truthful they wouldn't either. and that is what you are doing. giving up that freedom of choice and why i don't think it will ever FULLY come to the point of having driverless cars.
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
No, because physics still governs the rules of deceleration.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
No, because physics still governs the rules of deceleration.
my point is that it wouldn't react as humans would. can you program a car to "swerve safely"? I guess you could, but the obvious choice to me would be to program it to stop immediately. if there are multiple possible "obstacles", as someone pointed out, what would the computer choose? if the only choice, physically, was to hit SOMETHING, what would it choose? or what would you want it to choose? if it's my car, I'd rather it chose to injure me, personally.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
You don't seem to understand what computers are capable of. Also, the panic instinct that kicks in a split second before a terrible car accident is nothing to boast about, lol. There is no critical thinking involved, and certainly no time for moral decisions. Computers, on the other hand, actually can replicate critical thinking that quickly now. Anyway, Yes, believe it or not, driverless cars are factually much, much safer than human drivers. This isn't even a matter of opinion. And FWIW, all cars being driverless would reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads by about 95% - that means saving about 2,158,399 people from death or injury each year in the USA alone. It would also eliminate traffic jams and give people an amazing amount of spare time that they currently spend focusing on the road (or not - distracted driving is worse than drunk driving and there is still almost no stigma attached to it) .... And your desire to have control would somehow more important than that? I hope you just don't know about the subject and are speaking from a place of ignorance. Because otherwise that is really selfish thinking. I mean, all cars won't be driverless in your lifetime I don't think, but just the attitude... surely you're just unaware of how beneficial a total move to driverless would be. (again, sorry everyone for veering off track so much - I don't even remember how this conversation about driverless cars started now, lol)
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
agree, and why would I as the driver want that? why would i give the machine the choice to injure me and/or my passenger 1st? i wouldn't and i think if people are truthful they wouldn't either. and that is what you are doing. giving up that freedom of choice and why i don't think it will ever FULLY come to the point of having driverless cars.
You guys don't even know what you're talking about, seriously.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
agree, and why would I as the driver want that? why would i give the machine the choice to injure me and/or my passenger 1st? i wouldn't and i think if people are truthful they wouldn't either. and that is what you are doing. giving up that freedom of choice and why i don't think it will ever FULLY come to the point of having driverless cars.
You guys don't even know what you're talking about, seriously.
of course we don't.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
agree, and why would I as the driver want that? why would i give the machine the choice to injure me and/or my passenger 1st? i wouldn't and i think if people are truthful they wouldn't either. and that is what you are doing. giving up that freedom of choice and why i don't think it will ever FULLY come to the point of having driverless cars.
You guys don't even know what you're talking about, seriously.
of course we don't.
What's that supposed to mean? If you think a driverless car would simply stop on a dime to the point where it would necessarily injure the passenger, then you don't know much of anything about driverless car technology and its potential.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
agree, and why would I as the driver want that? why would i give the machine the choice to injure me and/or my passenger 1st? i wouldn't and i think if people are truthful they wouldn't either. and that is what you are doing. giving up that freedom of choice and why i don't think it will ever FULLY come to the point of having driverless cars.
You guys don't even know what you're talking about, seriously.
of course we don't.
What's that supposed to mean? If you think a driverless car would simply stop on a dime to the point where it would necessarily injure the passenger, then you don't know much of anything about driverless car technology and its potential.
no, I don't. and I don't claim to. Besides one article I've read, I know next to zero. I'd like to learn more about it. but then it gets shut down, again, by one of your "I know more than you do" comments.
back to trump.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
agree, and why would I as the driver want that? why would i give the machine the choice to injure me and/or my passenger 1st? i wouldn't and i think if people are truthful they wouldn't either. and that is what you are doing. giving up that freedom of choice and why i don't think it will ever FULLY come to the point of having driverless cars.
You guys don't even know what you're talking about, seriously.
of course we don't.
What's that supposed to mean? If you think a driverless car would simply stop on a dime to the point where it would necessarily injure the passenger, then you don't know much of anything about driverless car technology and its potential.
no, I don't. and I don't claim to. Besides one article I've read, I know next to zero. I'd like to learn more about it. but then it gets shut down, again, by one of your "I know more than you do" comments.
back to trump.
Dude, don't pull that shit. That's some low down dirty bullshit. You also have "I know more than you do" comments when you do, in fact, know more than the person you're discussing it with. I'm not shutting you down, but you are the one who made a comment that is based on literally nothing... and now it's my fault that you didn't want to take into consideration what I already said. Way to make it personal.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
You don't seem to understand what computers are capable of. Also, the panic instinct that kicks in a split second before a terrible car accident is nothing to boast about, lol. There is no critical thinking involved, and certainly no time for moral decisions. Computers, on the other hand, actually can replicate critical thinking that quickly now. Anyway, Yes, believe it or not, driverless cars are factually much, much safer than human drivers. This isn't even a matter of opinion. And FWIW, all cars being driverless would reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads by about 95% - that means saving about 2,158,399 people from death or injury each year in the USA alone. It would also eliminate traffic jams and give people an amazing amount of spare time that they currently spend focusing on the road (or not - distracted driving is worse than drunk driving and there is still almost no stigma attached to it) .... And your desire to have control would somehow more important than that? I hope you just don't know about the subject and are speaking from a place of ignorance. Because otherwise that is really selfish thinking. I mean, all cars won't be driverless in your lifetime I don't think, but just the attitude... surely you're just unaware of how beneficial a total move to driverless would be. (again, sorry everyone for veering off track so much - I don't even remember how this conversation about driverless cars started now, lol)
yes i admit that is a selfish attitude but it's an honest one.
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
You don't seem to understand what computers are capable of. Also, the panic instinct that kicks in a split second before a terrible car accident is nothing to boast about, lol. There is no critical thinking involved, and certainly no time for moral decisions. Computers, on the other hand, actually can replicate critical thinking that quickly now. Anyway, Yes, believe it or not, driverless cars are factually much, much safer than human drivers. This isn't even a matter of opinion. And FWIW, all cars being driverless would reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads by about 95% - that means saving about 2,158,399 people from death or injury each year in the USA alone. It would also eliminate traffic jams and give people an amazing amount of spare time that they currently spend focusing on the road (or not - distracted driving is worse than drunk driving and there is still almost no stigma attached to it) .... And your desire to have control would somehow more important than that? I hope you just don't know about the subject and are speaking from a place of ignorance. Because otherwise that is really selfish thinking. I mean, all cars won't be driverless in your lifetime I don't think, but just the attitude... surely you're just unaware of how beneficial a total move to driverless would be. (again, sorry everyone for veering off track so much - I don't even remember how this conversation about driverless cars started now, lol)
yes i admit that is a selfish attitude but it's an honest one.
I can definitely respect honesty!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, I actually 100% support a complete ban of cars that require drivers too, if we're getting deep into the subject. The sooner driverless cars are the only option, the better. That will cure society of 99% of all traffic woes and accidents. However, I think your arguments for cars going way faster than any speed limit are a bit crazy. There is NO justification for weaving in and out of traffic or tailgating. That is ALWAYS dangerous driving behaviour, and really the only thing that justifies it is impatience. I agree driving habits are the main cause of traffic jams... fast drivers and slow drivers alike have those habits though, so that is besides the point. Driverless cars all the way! SO much safer and SO much more efficient. But only if everyone is using them. Someday it will become law... if society doesn't collapse and go to shit first.
so you never change lanes?
anyway i don't see a time where driverless cars will ever be a norm. too many variables and decisions have to come into play when driving for all decisions to be allowed to be made by the car. for example you are driving down the block and a child runs into the street to retrieve a ball. too many factors to take into account do decide the course of action in that case. stop, swerve left, swerve right? the variables for those 3 decisions are too numerous to mention. without human thought and instinct at the moment what decision is to be made? you can't program that for every possibility of what is left ,right and behind you.
as for Trump he thinks because people desperate for supplies who reach out to take them from him are doing it out of love? ok Donny that's why they are taking that from you. letting him out in public is a hazard to this country.
Machines will make these decisions much faster and better than humans. They can process information regarding those types of things so much quicker. Angle, speed, etc. will tell it exactly what to do. You can program that, very easily.
child runs in front of you car, married couple walking with their dog to the left, old couple doing gardening to your right, 18-wheeler behind you. someone is going to die. who decides and who programs which life is most valuable in that instant?
This is a great point and faster isn't better. Deciding is not what computers do. They follow instructions. Humans decide with the brain with can use many more factors in my humble opinion
AI can indeed decide many things after and more accurately than the human brain. We humans have a natural tendency to overvalue the accuracy of our judgements, but in many matters such as these computers already have us beat by a mile. About the only areas in which we are superior are creativity and empathy (well, most of us except Trump, that is - thread integrity).
And really, nobody can make those decisions in a split second anyway. Are you two trying to tell me that your super-computer brains are capable of having a kid dash out in front of your car so close that you don't have time to brake, and you're perfectly able to take in and evaluate the fact that there is a pregnant lady to your left, an old couple to your right, and a truck behind you, and then have the wherewithal to make a good decision about who is best to run over or how to perfectly steer around it all, and about whether slamming on your brakes is going to cause a chain reaction because of the truck behind you??? And that you can do any one of those things faster than a computer? I call huge bullshit. The premise is totally ridiculous and I can't believe you're trying to suggest it. I'll tell you what you and anyone else would do in that situation: you'd slam on your brakes or swerve wildly to the side no matter what happens to be next to you. Those are the only two things a human brain could manage to get done in that amount of time.
and this is exactly my point. a human's reaction would be instinct but you can't program instinct and if you can't program instinct you are in effect asking a computer who dies in such a situation. so how is that choice made? how is life A chosen over Life B? It's not so much the exact scenario i am presenting but the dilemma of how a program chooses on a morality scale. how would it program a father swerving left to save his child as opposed to swerving right to put his child in harm's way? natural instinct of almost any parent is going to be to swerve away from their child if they are about to hit someone in front of them. would you want a machine making that choice for you or would you prefer your natural parental instincts to kick in? i can't imagine any parent choosing to allow a computer to decide that.
regardless as long as there are people like me who like driving and who enjoy the control of driving the only way fully driverless cars would even come to fruition is with government intervention. i can say almost unequivically i would never FULLY give up control. Maybe in some scenarios but never all.
it would most likely just stop on a dime and injure the passenger of the vehicle.
agree, and why would I as the driver want that? why would i give the machine the choice to injure me and/or my passenger 1st? i wouldn't and i think if people are truthful they wouldn't either. and that is what you are doing. giving up that freedom of choice and why i don't think it will ever FULLY come to the point of having driverless cars.
You guys don't even know what you're talking about, seriously.
of course we don't.
What's that supposed to mean? If you think a driverless car would simply stop on a dime to the point where it would necessarily injure the passenger, then you don't know much of anything about driverless car technology and its potential.
no, I don't. and I don't claim to. Besides one article I've read, I know next to zero. I'd like to learn more about it. but then it gets shut down, again, by one of your "I know more than you do" comments.
back to trump.
Dude, don't pull that shit. That's some low down dirty bullshit. You also have "I know more than you do" comments when you do, in fact, know more than the person you're discussing it with. I'm not shutting you down, but you are the one who made a comment that is based on literally nothing... and now it's my fault that you didn't want to take into consideration what I already said. Way to make it personal.
When we're done discussing driverless cars, can you two give your thoughts on the differences between mma and football again?
Also--I can't be the only one picturing pjsoul snapping her figures, waving her hands and saying "OH NO YOU DIDN'T!" before typing "that's some low down dirty bullshit."
Also--I can't be the only one picturing pjsoul snapping her figures, waving her hands and saying "OH NO YOU DIDN'T!" before typing "that's some low down dirty bullshit."
Also--I can't be the only one picturing pjsoul snapping her figures, waving her hands and saying "OH NO YOU DIDN'T!" before typing "that's some low down dirty bullshit."
amiright?
I really can't pull that move off.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
We do not discuss members' history at any time. When an action is taken, it also includes taking into consideration any prior history. I don't recall doing so but if it happened, there was a history. Just that single incident wouldn't cause a ban but if there was a ferocious argument going on, it would get a thread locked or temp-locked, you know? The goals here are for polite discussion with each other. People can be passionate but let's bring our best manners to the forums. I think there's a song about manners somewhere.
thanks for the response.
I don't recall a ban for that either. What I do recall are comments like that creating sparks, accusing someone of being racist for calling Obama a piece of shit, then they call the other names and so one until someone (like G.....nevermind) gets banned. I don't think it's been unfair with the treatment of posters calling Trump names though vs those who didn't like Obama.
We do not discuss members' history at any time. When an action is taken, it also includes taking into consideration any prior history. I don't recall doing so but if it happened, there was a history. Just that single incident wouldn't cause a ban but if there was a ferocious argument going on, it would get a thread locked or temp-locked, you know? The goals here are for polite discussion with each other. People can be passionate but let's bring our best manners to the forums. I think there's a song about manners somewhere.
thanks for the response.
I don't recall a ban for that either. What I do recall are comments like that creating sparks, accusing someone of being racist for calling Obama a piece of shit, then they call the other names and so one until someone (like G.....nevermind) gets banned. I don't think it's been unfair with the treatment of posters calling Trump names though vs those who didn't like Obama.
but isn't there a distinction between calling someone a name and calling someone at apt description? i mean pretty much every name someone has called Trump fits.
We do not discuss members' history at any time. When an action is taken, it also includes taking into consideration any prior history. I don't recall doing so but if it happened, there was a history. Just that single incident wouldn't cause a ban but if there was a ferocious argument going on, it would get a thread locked or temp-locked, you know? The goals here are for polite discussion with each other. People can be passionate but let's bring our best manners to the forums. I think there's a song about manners somewhere.
thanks for the response.
I don't recall a ban for that either. What I do recall are comments like that creating sparks, accusing someone of being racist for calling Obama a piece of shit, then they call the other names and so one until someone (like G.....nevermind) gets banned. I don't think it's been unfair with the treatment of posters calling Trump names though vs those who didn't like Obama.
I couldn't recall, hence the question. It was just a feeling I had that more is "let through" because it's Trump. But she says no, so I will respect her position on the matter.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Dude, don't pull that shit. That's some low down dirty bullshit. You also have "I know more than you do" comments when you do, in fact, know more than the person you're discussing it with. I'm not shutting you down, but you are the one who made a comment that is based on literally nothing... and now it's my fault that you didn't want to take into consideration what I already said. Way to make it personal.
you know, since this topic has zero to do with the topic we are discussing, I maybe didn't see every word that was written about it. I probably skipped over a good portion of it.
and made a horrible mistake by making one comment on it.
my bad.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Donald Trump once boasted of how he refused to help an 80-year-old man who had fallen off a stage and seriously hit his head at a charity dinner.
The shock admission came during a 2008 interview with US shock jock Howard Stern, and saw Trump describe the elderly man’s injury as ‘disgusting.’
Describing the incident, which happened at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, he said: ‘We had the Marines. And the Marines were there, and it was terrible because all these rich people, they’re there to support the Marines, but they’re really there to get their picture in the Palm Beach Post.
‘So, you have all these really rich people, and a man, about 80 years old – very wealthy man, a lot of people didn’t like him – he fell off the stage. So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died.
‘And you know what I did? I said, “Oh my God, that’s disgusting,” and I turned away.
‘I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him. He’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible.
‘You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed colour. Became very red. And you have this poor guy, 80 years old, laying on the floor unconscious, and all the rich people are turning away.’
Instead, the then-businessmen sat back and allowed a group of marines to take over as they rushed to the man’s aid.
‘What happens is, these 10 Marines from the back of the room’, Trump boasted.
‘They come running forward, they grab him, they put the blood all over the place—it’s all over their uniforms—they’re taking it, they’re swiping [it], they ran him out, they created a stretcher.
‘They call it a human stretcher, where they put their arms out with, like, five guys on each side. I was saying, “Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!” The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say he’s OK.
‘It’s just not my thing.’
The bizarre admission is only one of several questionable remarks that Trump has made on the Howard Stern show, having previously admitted the unorthodox relationship he has with wife Melania in public.
Donald Trump once boasted of how he refused to help an 80-year-old man who had fallen off a stage and seriously hit his head at a charity dinner.
The shock admission came during a 2008 interview with US shock jock Howard Stern, and saw Trump describe the elderly man’s injury as ‘disgusting.’
Describing the incident, which happened at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, he said: ‘We had the Marines. And the Marines were there, and it was terrible because all these rich people, they’re there to support the Marines, but they’re really there to get their picture in the Palm Beach Post.
‘So, you have all these really rich people, and a man, about 80 years old – very wealthy man, a lot of people didn’t like him – he fell off the stage. So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died.
‘And you know what I did? I said, “Oh my God, that’s disgusting,” and I turned away.
‘I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him. He’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible.
‘You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed colour. Became very red. And you have this poor guy, 80 years old, laying on the floor unconscious, and all the rich people are turning away.’
Instead, the then-businessmen sat back and allowed a group of marines to take over as they rushed to the man’s aid.
‘What happens is, these 10 Marines from the back of the room’, Trump boasted.
‘They come running forward, they grab him, they put the blood all over the place—it’s all over their uniforms—they’re taking it, they’re swiping [it], they ran him out, they created a stretcher.
‘They call it a human stretcher, where they put their arms out with, like, five guys on each side. I was saying, “Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!” The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say he’s OK.
‘It’s just not my thing.’
The bizarre admission is only one of several questionable remarks that Trump has made on the Howard Stern show, having previously admitted the unorthodox relationship he has with wife Melania in public.
Dude, don't pull that shit. That's some low down dirty bullshit. You also have "I know more than you do" comments when you do, in fact, know more than the person you're discussing it with. I'm not shutting you down, but you are the one who made a comment that is based on literally nothing... and now it's my fault that you didn't want to take into consideration what I already said. Way to make it personal.
you know, since this topic has zero to do with the topic we are discussing, I maybe didn't see every word that was written about it. I probably skipped over a good portion of it.
and made a horrible mistake by making one comment on it.
my bad.
Horrible mistake may be overstating things, lol. But really, the only issue I had was the unfair (IMO) personal dig. I think you and I are beyond that, or at least I thought we were. Anyway, onward and upward.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Regarding name calling. Here's our current president essentially, passive aggressively, calling his predessor a f***ing moron on twitter a few years ago. Yes, Virginia, there really is a tweet for everything:
Comments
And FWIW, all cars being driverless would reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads by about 95% - that means saving about 2,158,399 people from death or injury each year in the USA alone. It would also eliminate traffic jams and give people an amazing amount of spare time that they currently spend focusing on the road (or not - distracted driving is worse than drunk driving and there is still almost no stigma attached to it) .... And your desire to have control would somehow more important than that? I hope you just don't know about the subject and are speaking from a place of ignorance. Because otherwise that is really selfish thinking. I mean, all cars won't be driverless in your lifetime I don't think, but just the attitude... surely you're just unaware of how beneficial a total move to driverless would be.
(again, sorry everyone for veering off track so much - I don't even remember how this conversation about driverless cars started now, lol)
If you think a driverless car would simply stop on a dime to the point where it would necessarily injure the passenger, then you don't know much of anything about driverless car technology and its potential.
back to trump.
When we're done discussing driverless cars, can you two give your thoughts on the differences between mma and football again?
Also--I can't be the only one picturing pjsoul snapping her figures, waving her hands and saying "OH NO YOU DIDN'T!" before typing "that's some low down dirty bullshit."
amiright?
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/trump-meets-shooting-survivors-las-vegas-hospital-honors-their-bravery-n807441
and made a horrible mistake by making one comment on it.
my bad.
Donald Trump once boasted of how he refused to help an 80-year-old man who had fallen off a stage and seriously hit his head at a charity dinner.
The shock admission came during a 2008 interview with US shock jock Howard Stern, and saw Trump describe the elderly man’s injury as ‘disgusting.’
Describing the incident, which happened at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, he said: ‘We had the Marines. And the Marines were there, and it was terrible because all these rich people, they’re there to support the Marines, but they’re really there to get their picture in the Palm Beach Post.
‘So, you have all these really rich people, and a man, about 80 years old – very wealthy man, a lot of people didn’t like him – he fell off the stage. So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died.
‘And you know what I did? I said, “Oh my God, that’s disgusting,” and I turned away.
‘I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him. He’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible.
‘You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed colour. Became very red. And you have this poor guy, 80 years old, laying on the floor unconscious, and all the rich people are turning away.’
Instead, the then-businessmen sat back and allowed a group of marines to take over as they rushed to the man’s aid.
‘What happens is, these 10 Marines from the back of the room’, Trump boasted.
‘They come running forward, they grab him, they put the blood all over the place—it’s all over their uniforms—they’re taking it, they’re swiping [it], they ran him out, they created a stretcher.
‘They call it a human stretcher, where they put their arms out with, like, five guys on each side. I was saying, “Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!” The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say he’s OK.
‘It’s just not my thing.’
The bizarre admission is only one of several questionable remarks that Trump has made on the Howard Stern show, having previously admitted the unorthodox relationship he has with wife Melania in public.
He also previously admitted that he said ‘Oh great’, when ex-wife Marla Marples revealed she was pregnant with daughter Tiffany in 1993.
But really, the only issue I had was the unfair (IMO) personal dig. I think you and I are beyond that, or at least I thought we were. Anyway, onward and upward.