6 ms·
I agree with you. Real self driving is impossible, IMO. Current "AI" tech will never get us there. And even if we cracked real AGI, I don't see a reason to expe
by dahfizz 5y ago
I agree with you. Real self driving is impossible, IMO. Current "AI" tech will never get us there. And even if we cracked real AGI, I don't see a reason to expect the computer intelligence to be a better driver than a human. AGI does not mean the absence of emotions, distractions, or miscalculations.
We as a society should be realistic about the advantages and limitations of self driving technology. On a highway with well marked lanes and no construction, pedestrians, etc, self driving is awesome. That is the use case that should be optimized and encouraged by states. Everything else should realistically be banned.
- petters 5y ago> And even if we cracked real AGI, I don't see a reason to expect the computer intelligence to be a better driver than a human. You can't be serious. Human are notoriously bad in situations where nothing happens 99.9% of the time but requires quick reaction 0.1% of the time.
- dahfizz 5y agoWhy would a computer intelligence be any less prone to distraction?
- bun_at_work 5y agoEasy - we can define the computer's objective function. Why would it get distracted by things it doesn't care about? Meanwhile, humans are checking Instagram and Pornhub while driving around.
- nradov 5y agoWell we haven't invented AGI yet, and so we don't even know if it will be possible to control them with an objective function. So your opinion is entirely speculative and not based on any science.
- bun_at_work 5y agoWho is talking about AGI? No one.
- dahfizz 5y agoWell, the comment you replied to was talking about AGI.
- reaperducer 5y agoWhy would a computer intelligence be any less prone to distraction? Just wiggle the mouse when you're in a construction zone, so the computer's processing speeds up. Just like on the desktop!
- jvanderbot 5y agoYou're assuming an AGI would have all the characteristics of a machine algorithm and enough intelligence to do exactly what a human would/should (or better) in all driving situations. That's a big ask, and is a huge superset of AGI.
- petters 5y agoHumans were evolved for vastly different things than driving. The space of all intelligences is huge.
- heavyset_go 5y agoAnd yet there is no evidence that self-driving systems are any safer than human drivers, or that they'll ever even be as safe as human drivers, let alone safer than them.
- dekhn 5y agoWhat do you mean "no evidence"? The companies testing self-driving cars now have hundreds of millions of miles driven and I haven't seen any reliable report showing they have higher kill rates than human drivers. It would seem entirely possible that large amounts of highway driving can be handled by self-driving cars with slightly lower rates of accidents (tired and drunk people kill a lot of people!)
- nradov 5y agoIt's still vaporware for now, but next year GM is supposedly going to start selling a system that will allow true hands-off self driving on highways. It will be interesting to see if they really deliver. The claims seem to be well beyond what Tesla currently sells. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37886786/general-motors-ultra-cruise-announced/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37886786/general-motors-u...
- dahfizz 5y ago> General Motors is adding another tier to its hands-free driving technology with its new Ultra Cruise system that it claims will work in 95 percent of driving situations. This seems to be exactly what I mean. They admit that their system can't handle the 5% of edge cases, and market it appropriately. This is not a full self driving car.