3 ms·

"Whether a car is being controlled by computer or human being shouldn't matter at all." There is human-equivalent software? That's astonishing. Where can I fin

"Whether a car is being controlled by computer or human being shouldn't matter at all." There is human-equivalent software? That's astonishing. Where can I find it? Does it run on ARM? Edit: Bummer. I called Denso, they were adamant that their human-level code v3.11 is a trade secret. "A car with a human in it deserves more protection" We agree. _please_ explain how to accomplish that. Remember, KE is relative, therefore velocity and mass limits for the pre-programmed machine are not relevant. Clearly my empty pre-programmed human carrying drone should enjoy the same lanes as a loaded 777. Lets set aside the distraction about remote control which totally ignores the "skin in the physics game" which transportation of life requires.

Dylan16807 9y ago
> There is human-equivalent software? Did I imply that? I don't see how that's relevant. > We agree. _please_ explain how to accomplish that. If you agree with me then why do I have to explain anything? You're being confusing with all your talk of kinetic energy. Are you trying to imply that robocars inherently make the roads more dangerous? I don't think that's true at all. As an extreme example, even with today's tech you could flood the roads with 20mph robocars and make things safer overall. > Clearly my empty pre-programmed human carrying drone should enjoy the same lanes as a loaded 777. Lets set aside the distraction about remote control which totally ignores the "skin in the physics game" which transportation of life requires. If you want to pay the same airport fees, go for it. Seems fair to me. If you're worried about congestion and road funding when it comes to cars then limit priority to one robocar per person. But when I have exactly one car, my ability to use the roads to drive it to the store shouldn't depend on whether my butt is inside of it. Why would "skin in the game" be necessary? A taxi with a driver inside can act exactly the same as a taxi without a driver inside.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  "Whether a car is being controlled by computer or human being shouldn't matter at all." "A taxi with a driver inside can act exactly the same as a taxi without a driver inside." Again, where is this software that enables the pre-programmed taxi to "act exactly the same"? I assume you are making an actual argument, not "it can drive in a line and stop at a stop sign".
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Is my argument invalid if that software doesn't exist in 2017? And you could remote control a car today if you wanted to. Nobody inside in that case.
  - fixermark 9y ago
    I believe a vehicle akin to the one you're describing ("act exactly the same" is a bit unnecessarily specific, but "drive safely on a road under its own direction from a point A to a point B chosen by a human") is definitely what Waymo is prototyping, and such vehichles have already driven on public roads (with human occupants, but without human occupants operating the control surfaces).
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      There will never be conventional digital pre-programmed cars that "act exactly the same" or even remotely as "same" as a human driver. What is going to happen, is for a bit, the control writers will blame humans for their failure, followed shortly by the population's understanind and eventual ban in many places on this unworkable idea. Tightly restricted societies that put "safety" over "freedom" will just end up banning non-elite direct human control of KE>nJ. The repercussions of that mistake have ugly ends.

Dylan16807 9y ago

> There is human-equivalent software? Did I imply that? I don't see how that's relevant. > We agree. _please_ explain how to accomplish that. If you agree with me then why do I have to explain anything? You're being confusing with all your talk of kinetic energy. Are you trying to imply that robocars inherently make the roads more dangerous? I don't think that's true at all. As an extreme example, even with today's tech you could flood the roads with 20mph robocars and make things safer overall. > Clearly my empty pre-programmed human carrying drone should enjoy the same lanes as a loaded 777. Lets set aside the distraction about remote control which totally ignores the "skin in the physics game" which transportation of life requires. If you want to pay the same airport fees, go for it. Seems fair to me. If you're worried about congestion and road funding when it comes to cars then limit priority to one robocar per person. But when I have exactly one car, my ability to use the roads to drive it to the store shouldn't depend on whether my butt is inside of it. Why would "skin in the game" be necessary? A taxi with a driver inside can act exactly the same as a taxi without a driver inside.

jakeogh 9y ago
"Whether a car is being controlled by computer or human being shouldn't matter at all." "A taxi with a driver inside can act exactly the same as a taxi without a driver inside." Again, where is this software that enables the pre-programmed taxi to "act exactly the same"? I assume you are making an actual argument, not "it can drive in a line and stop at a stop sign".
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Is my argument invalid if that software doesn't exist in 2017? And you could remote control a car today if you wanted to. Nobody inside in that case.
- fixermark 9y ago
  I believe a vehicle akin to the one you're describing ("act exactly the same" is a bit unnecessarily specific, but "drive safely on a road under its own direction from a point A to a point B chosen by a human") is definitely what Waymo is prototyping, and such vehichles have already driven on public roads (with human occupants, but without human occupants operating the control surfaces).
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    There will never be conventional digital pre-programmed cars that "act exactly the same" or even remotely as "same" as a human driver. What is going to happen, is for a bit, the control writers will blame humans for their failure, followed shortly by the population's understanind and eventual ban in many places on this unworkable idea. Tightly restricted societies that put "safety" over "freedom" will just end up banning non-elite direct human control of KE>nJ. The repercussions of that mistake have ugly ends.