4 ms·
> The issue of androids is going to be an annoying one in a thousand years. Do you really think it will take a thousand years for that situation to arise? I'm
by fpvracing 10y ago
> The issue of androids is going to be an annoying one in a thousand years.
Do you really think it will take a thousand years for that situation to arise? I'm betting on less than fifty.
- thinkloop 10y agoThe last 10% always looks really tough for me. For example we kind'of have self-driving cars right now - but when will we have self-driving cars without a driver's cockpit where I can play poker in the back with complete faith that it will handle all situations intelligently, navigate any terrain and manage any situation - seems like 50+ years to me for just that.
- ajuc 10y ago> but when will we have self-driving cars without a driver's cockpit where I can play poker in the back with complete faith that it will handle all situations intelligently, navigate any terrain and manage any situation We could have them now if we equipped all vehicles and pedestrians using roads with simple device to broadcast position, velocity, and planned route.
- thinkloop 10y agoYes we could cheat :)
- brian_cloutier 10y agoDeer and fallen tree limbs and icy bridges too
- astazangasta 10y agoLight rain
- adrianN 10y agoIf you want your cars to literally never make a mistake you might have to wait a little longer, but reaching human or superhuman driving ability shouldn't be that hard. Humans are pretty badly equipped for driving, with our shitty reflexes, two eyes and easily distracted brain.
- astazangasta 10y agoMachines are pretty badly equipped for driving, with their shitty machine vision, total lack of socialization, poor ability to interpret context, etc.
- coldtea 10y agoWell, shitty machine vision can include sonars, see behind obstacles and solid objects etc. And "total lack of socialization" can instead be a full blown cooperative driving network of cars that inform one another for their course.
- astazangasta 10y agoNo, it can't. They still need to be able to understand that a toddler has stepped into the street, that a pedestrian has fallen down drunk in the crossway, that dude X thinks he ought to be able to go first or simply doesn't give a shit what the car thinks. You can't solve this problem by blinking away the world.
- coldtea 10y agoNot sure what you're getting at. All of the things you mentioned can (and most have) been solved even in the current bunch of self-driving cars. A toddle stepping into the street? A modern self-driving car sensor can "see" it better than the average driver -- and it doesn't even have to involve actual vision. I'm not sure what you're arguing against exactly. Actual current research problems with self-driving-car vision are totally different (e.g. disambiguating signals when raining or snowing etc). And nothing insurmountable about these either. >that dude X thinks he ought to be able to go first or simply doesn't give a shit what the car thinks Whatever he thinks, if it translates to an actual action in his car, other automatic cars can respond to it in the blink of an eye.
- taneq 10y agoMachine vision is the same (or at least was before all this convnet wizardry that's going on these days). You could get something pretty good (say 80% accurate) in an afternoon, or something good enough to demo (say 90% accurate) in a week. Then it'll take you 6 months to get to 99% accurate, and 5 years to get to 99.9% accurate. And if you're analyzing one image a second, that's still more than three failures an hour, which is nowhere near useful for any kind of production system.