Originally posted by advice for robots:
www.whitewhine.com
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Honestly, what's changed in 4400 years?
"From year to year, the clothes of the (young) gentlemen here become better, but you let my clothes get worse.
"The son of Adad-iddinam, whose father is only an assistant to my father, (has) two new sets of clothes . . . while you fuss even about a single set of clothes for me. In spite of the fact that you bore me and his mother only adopted him, his mother loves him, while you, you do not love me!"
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:How could you do this to me, I can't stop reading.
Originally posted by advice for robots:
www.whitewhine.com
quote:Hah, yea, that's the same thing as going on a four hour car journey.
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
I wish I could remember the exact place I found this (I think in a severely outdated history book my husband got second hand), but I stumbled upon a reference to the children of the nobility who traveled with the first crusade continually asking if they had reached Jerusalem yet when they were still only in Italy.
I love the idea of a bunch of bored medieval kids going "Are we in Jerusalem yet?"
quote:I hear ya.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:How could you do this to me, I can't stop reading.
Originally posted by advice for robots:
www.whitewhine.com
quote:There had better be floating cities, dang it. And flying cars.
Maybe one day, thousands of years from, someone will look back and see some of the stuff we've written and think "wow, look at that, these people were just like us". Except they'll live in floating cities and their video games will essentially be legalized drug trips thanks to their Matrix-esque technology.
quote:How did you know I was writing a book?
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book."
— Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 BC – 43 BC
quote:But our society kind of demands that we do this, and the result is usually a better job, a hotter girlfriend, more money, or some other personal gain...so I don't think it has much to do with believing as it does with the fact that it actually works.
Also from Cicero:
"Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century:
Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others;
quote:Wait...according to Cicero here, nothing is impossible, which means everything can be changed, so worrying about something that we can't change doesn't make sense. Dammit Cicero! You and your circular logic!
Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected;
quote:
Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it;
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
quote:
Refusing to set aside trivial preferences;
quote:So the atom bomb is a good thing, then? Huzzahs!
Neglecting development and refinement of the mind;
quote:Henceforth every Friday shall be known as Happy Pants Day, and we all shall have root beer and tacos for dinner! All those who oppose my decree shall suffer the wrath of the whiffle bat!
Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do."
quote:Well human piloted flying cars are a no go but with sufficiently advanced computers and navigation automated flying cars are possible.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Flying cars are the ultimate "you can't have nice things" — sorry, it's not happening. People are just too dumb.
quote:No, the result of crushing others is usually going to jail, or to live in a society so destroyed that no gain is made.
quote:But our society kind of demands that we do this, and the result is usually a better job, a hotter girlfriend, more money, or some other personal gain...so I don't think it has much to do with believing as it does with the fact that it actually works.
Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others;
quote:He didn't say "everything is possible as long as we believe", he said "you can't call something impossible, just because *you* can't do it."
quote:Right, because 1+1 can totally equal 7, as long as we believe. [Razz]
Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it;
Also, by saying that nothing is impossible,
quote:Aren't we calling these flying cars "helicopters" and "private small planes"?
Well human piloted flying cars are a no go but with sufficiently advanced computers and navigation automated flying cars are possible.
quote:You dramatically overestimate the current state of artificial intelligence. The day when computers will be able to drive cars more safely than humans is still a very long way off.
Well human piloted flying cars are a no go but with sufficiently advanced computers and navigation automated flying cars are possible.
Really taking humans out of driving any cars would probably save countless lives.
quote:Clearly, these guys do.
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
Who needs a flying car anyway?
quote:No. I was thinking the traditions SCI-FI "flitter"
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:No, the result of crushing others is usually going to jail, or to live in a society so destroyed that no gain is made.
quote:But our society kind of demands that we do this, and the result is usually a better job, a hotter girlfriend, more money, or some other personal gain...so I don't think it has much to do with believing as it does with the fact that it actually works.
Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others;
quote:He didn't say "everything is possible as long as we believe", he said "you can't call something impossible, just because *you* can't do it."
quote:Right, because 1+1 can totally equal 7, as long as we believe. [Razz]
Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it;
Also, by saying that nothing is impossible,
The second part is important. The fallacy isn't in calling things impossible, the fallacy is in calling them impossible because of your personal (or even collective) inability to do them.
quote:Aren't we calling these flying cars "helicopters" and "private small planes"?
Well human piloted flying cars are a no go but with sufficiently advanced computers and navigation automated flying cars are possible.
quote:No it's not. Googles's experiments show how surprisingly easy setting up such a system could be, The real issue is liability concerns and getting the public on board. Both of those problems are harder than the technical aspects.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You dramatically overestimate the current state of artificial intelligence. The day when computers will be able to drive cars more safely than humans is still a very long way off.
Well human piloted flying cars are a no go but with sufficiently advanced computers and navigation automated flying cars are possible.
Really taking humans out of driving any cars would probably save countless lives.
quote:But social darwinism says it works, and so it must be true.
No, the result of crushing others is usually going to jail, or to live in a society so destroyed that no gain is made.
quote:
My refrigerator is so full I have to take things out to reach stuff in the back
quote:
I ordered my ribeye medium rare and it came back medium. It took 10 min before my free replacement came
quote:
My voice doesnt sound like a robot when I talk into my Dyson bladeless fan.
quote:No, he's not. While current driving AI is by no means able to deal with all scenarios (for instance, a major thunderstorm at night is right out), it is nearly at the point of approximately comparable accident rates in normal driving scenarios; certainly no more than five or ten years away. What's more, the current good driving record of google's AI cars (~140k miles of almost human free driving and ~1k miles of trips that had absolutely no human intervention, last they updated anyone on the numbers, which was late 2010, so I'd expect double that), where the only accident they've been in was being rear ended, is without enhancement of highways and without there being other self driving cars on the road to communicate with. Add one or both of those, and self driving cars suddenly become exponentially more capable.
aeolusdallas, I've read quite a few research articles about AI driving systems and you're wrong.
quote:I've totally been there.
There are 3 shows on TV right now that I'd like to watch, but my DVR can only record 2.
quote:
My voice doesnt sound like a robot when I talk into my Dyson bladeless fan.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
quote:
The elevator in my gym is out of order so I had to walk to the second floor
quote:I based my assessment on what I've learned from reading the details and not just the press releases. AI systems are very good at freeway driving, where they fall short is complex mixed use traffic systems. In the Google AI tests, for example, the human took control of the vehicle in situations where there were pedestrians, bicycles, cars backing out of parking spaces and so forth. The critical thing is that these are the situations where most accidents occur.
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:No, he's not. While current driving AI is by no means able to deal with all scenarios (for instance, a major thunderstorm at night is right out), it is nearly at the point of approximately comparable accident rates in normal driving scenarios; certainly no more than five or ten years away. What's more, the current good driving record of google's AI cars (~140k miles of almost human free driving and ~1k miles of trips that had absolutely no human intervention, last they updated anyone on the numbers, which was late 2010, so I'd expect double that), where the only accident they've been in was being rear ended, is without enhancement of highways and without there being other self driving cars on the road to communicate with. Add one or both of those, and self driving cars suddenly become exponentially more capable.
aeolusdallas, I've read quite a few research articles about AI driving systems and you're wrong.
That's the state of the technology for self driving cars: nearing good enough to beat humans in 90% of the driving we do (and smart enough to be able to pull over and tell the human to take over).
quote:And if you read closely, you'll see that the person riding along noted that the car was already avoiding the situation when the human took over, and did not seem like it was going to crash. The human took over because the human is liable in the off chance and Google desperately wants to avoid bad publicity, not because the AI wasn't capable of handling the situation. Unfortunately, Google isn't releasing information on their simulations of unexpected driving conditions on courses they control (and can thus take the risks of crashes on), but given they're testing the cars on lots of normal city streets (including the steepest one in SF), they don't seem to be acting like they haven't got in a lot of progress on the problem.
I based my assessment on what I've learned from reading the details and not just the press releases. AI systems are very good at freeway driving, where they fall short is complex mixed use traffic systems. In the Google AI tests, for example, the human took control of the vehicle in situations where there were pedestrians, bicycles, cars backing out of parking spaces and so forth. The critical thing is that these are the situations where most accidents occur.
quote:That's why the goal of self driving cars is closer than you think it is: because they only need to reduce accidents (especially major accidents) relative to human drivers to be a great idea. Given how many accidents are caused by, for instance, serious judgment errors by sleepy drivers, that goal is astonishingly realizable.
They barely do that when they are 100% in control.
quote:And a human who is over focused on, say, looking for the street they want to turn on is often incapable of noticing a small child wandering out into the street in front of them, but an AI car is right now capable of noticing that and going into active avoidance, avoiding the child before a human could even if they were looking straight at the child as it wandered out from behind a parked car.
As a human driver, you see a kid playing with a ball or a car sitting in the parking lot exit and you make an assessment about what they are likely to do. If the ball starts heading for the road, you know the kid is likely to follow and you slow down. Current AIs are no where near sophisticated enough to make those kinds of assessments, which is why the human drivers take over in those situations.
quote:Can you give me a source on this because it's contrary to everything I've read.
And a human who is over focused on, say, looking for the street they want to turn on is often incapable of noticing a small child wandering out into the street in front of them, but an AI car is right now capable of noticing that and going into active avoidance, avoiding the child before a human could even if they were looking straight at the child as it wandered out from behind a parked car.
quote:This is not true with current AI technology. The google AI car is able to drive on regular existing roads. There are AI car competitions, where cars drive off road over desert terrain.
So, in order to get an AI controlled vehicle to perform adequately, there would have to be sensors on the roads. These sensors would probably need to be placed every couple dozen yards away from the last.
quote:That's cool. Still, lawsuits and cost would be a problem. Of course, cost can always go down and safety can go up, but it will be quite some time before that happens.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:This is not true with current AI technology. The google AI car is able to drive on regular existing roads. There are AI car competitions, where cars drive off road over desert terrain.
So, in order to get an AI controlled vehicle to perform adequately, there would have to be sensors on the roads. These sensors would probably need to be placed every couple dozen yards away from the last.
The big limitation on AI cars (as I understand it) is the ability to anticipate. They respond very rapidly when something happens but have no ability to anticipate.
quote:The adjustment will happen quite naturally as prices adjust.
I think the biggest issue plaguing the auto-industry is fuel. We really need to make a transition to something other than fossil, but that would probably destroy the world's economy.