I've always considered the iPhone to be a step back from the Palm Pilot. The Palm Pilot actually allowed you to have your information in your hand. The iPhone just opened a hand held gateway to the internet. I'd question what the iPhone has over the Palm Pilot that makes it more of an important gadget.
Why do these articles keep indicating that Google has the tech? They were just driving into a bus at 2mph a month ago and all of a sudden they have eliminated every one of those problems from happening? How much testing have they done on snowed in and icy roads? Google may be in the beginning phases of working on the tech but they are nowhere near to 'having' the tech from what I can see.
I've heard a few drivers say that surge pricing is a massive pain because they only make real money when they are out during certain times, when the whole point of Uber is to be flexible for drivers.
Man so now we're talking about open interconnectivity between cars and being able to trust what the other cars around you are saying. There's a whole different hornet's nest that is not likely to be viable in reality.
The car *can* have all this information and additional information that humans can't.
One thing that you have to address is that humans don't drive because of what they see, they drive because of what they know. I already know what I'm going to have to do at every primary intersection because I can see snow on the ground and I know from experience where I live what road conditions are like just from driving on the same roads year after year following various types of weather. When I go on the road, I continue to observe the amount of snow on the sidewalks and yards and just generally outside to further establish how I will drive. An automated car isn't going to get a weather report, nor is it going to know what to do with that information. It's not going to have a way to assess whether there is an inch or three feet of snow on a yard beside an intersection, or understand snow banks or furrows left by a plow. An automated car will be like a person who is new to my city driving for the very first time in bad weather and trying to navigate purely from what they see on the road. The automated car won't even be able to get information from the whole road because there will be a car 10 feet in front blocking the view of the road, assuming these IR cameras cannot see through cars. So at best the AI car will be like a new driver looking directly at 10 feet of road in front of the car. Yes, the computer has a much faster reaction time, but tires steering on an icy road don't. It will be very difficult to get it to work I think.
What happens when there is a car in front of you? How is an IR camera going to see ice through a car and prepare to drive accordingly? A human can anticipate when there will be ice just by looking at the surrounding ground but an IR camera actually has to see it.
Because, all the training data in a self driving car will be entirely focused on keeping the car in the lane that it is supposed to be in. Enter ice and they have to undo almost everything and rewrite it so that the ice dictates where the vehicle should be, not the lane. Not only should the ice dictate where to drive, but you still have to decide whether the ice is telling you something safe. Lanes are trustworthy, ice is not. AI cars will need to be totally retrained for driving on ice.
If you are a person with a chevy cavellier and you want mercedes service eventually you have to stop trying to find the cheapest price on a cavellier and spring for a mercedes. Americans seem to be so focused on finding an economy government they don't realize a lot of countries with mercedes governments have already found solutions to issues they're looking for solutions to.
Well, in my lifetime they got AI from solving the towers of hanoi, to winning chess, to winning GO. Only a billion more board games to go, and driving is like playing 1000 of them at the same time.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement lately about what constitutes 'AI' and what constitutes 'automatic'. For me, 'automatic' should mean hands-off, you-don't-even-have-to-be-there automatic. In any weather, on any surface, with zero liability. I have this same standard for self-driving cars. People want to cheer the oncoming of automation and don't seem to see the serious legal issues that lie ahead.
So now the question becomes... If they had used a Microsoft sanctioned code base would it have been any different? This is why I was a bit surprised Microsoft bought Minecraft.
There is no conspiracy. Companies get the labor where it is the cheapest for amount of work done. Governments aren't requiring companies to do it, they just aren't willing to introduce protectionist measures.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always considered the iPhone to be a step back from the Palm Pilot. The Palm Pilot actually allowed you to have your information in your hand. The iPhone just opened a hand held gateway to the internet. I'd question what the iPhone has over the Palm Pilot that makes it more of an important gadget.
The technology industry has always been spectacular at coming up with solutions in search of problems.
Why do these articles keep indicating that Google has the tech? They were just driving into a bus at 2mph a month ago and all of a sudden they have eliminated every one of those problems from happening? How much testing have they done on snowed in and icy roads? Google may be in the beginning phases of working on the tech but they are nowhere near to 'having' the tech from what I can see.
Taxi drivers have been shot a lot but there was only one in the UK that conducted a shooting, ever. I looked it up.
I've heard a few drivers say that surge pricing is a massive pain because they only make real money when they are out during certain times, when the whole point of Uber is to be flexible for drivers.
Man so now we're talking about open interconnectivity between cars and being able to trust what the other cars around you are saying. There's a whole different hornet's nest that is not likely to be viable in reality.
The car *can* have all this information and additional information that humans can't.
One thing that you have to address is that humans don't drive because of what they see, they drive because of what they know. I already know what I'm going to have to do at every primary intersection because I can see snow on the ground and I know from experience where I live what road conditions are like just from driving on the same roads year after year following various types of weather. When I go on the road, I continue to observe the amount of snow on the sidewalks and yards and just generally outside to further establish how I will drive. An automated car isn't going to get a weather report, nor is it going to know what to do with that information. It's not going to have a way to assess whether there is an inch or three feet of snow on a yard beside an intersection, or understand snow banks or furrows left by a plow. An automated car will be like a person who is new to my city driving for the very first time in bad weather and trying to navigate purely from what they see on the road. The automated car won't even be able to get information from the whole road because there will be a car 10 feet in front blocking the view of the road, assuming these IR cameras cannot see through cars. So at best the AI car will be like a new driver looking directly at 10 feet of road in front of the car. Yes, the computer has a much faster reaction time, but tires steering on an icy road don't. It will be very difficult to get it to work I think.
An automated car isn't supposed to have a pilot, only passengers. If it needs to have a pilot, then it isn't fully automated.
simply assume the worst case
It's going to be so awesome to be driving with cars that assume the worst case and drive 6mph ALL THE TIME.
What happens when there is a car in front of you? How is an IR camera going to see ice through a car and prepare to drive accordingly? A human can anticipate when there will be ice just by looking at the surrounding ground but an IR camera actually has to see it.
You find a way to stop live every time it snows and get back to me.
Because, all the training data in a self driving car will be entirely focused on keeping the car in the lane that it is supposed to be in. Enter ice and they have to undo almost everything and rewrite it so that the ice dictates where the vehicle should be, not the lane. Not only should the ice dictate where to drive, but you still have to decide whether the ice is telling you something safe. Lanes are trustworthy, ice is not. AI cars will need to be totally retrained for driving on ice.
If you are a person with a chevy cavellier and you want mercedes service eventually you have to stop trying to find the cheapest price on a cavellier and spring for a mercedes. Americans seem to be so focused on finding an economy government they don't realize a lot of countries with mercedes governments have already found solutions to issues they're looking for solutions to.
Yet it hasn't increased the quality of life one iota.
Well, in my lifetime they got AI from solving the towers of hanoi, to winning chess, to winning GO. Only a billion more board games to go, and driving is like playing 1000 of them at the same time.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement lately about what constitutes 'AI' and what constitutes 'automatic'. For me, 'automatic' should mean hands-off, you-don't-even-have-to-be-there automatic. In any weather, on any surface, with zero liability. I have this same standard for self-driving cars. People want to cheer the oncoming of automation and don't seem to see the serious legal issues that lie ahead.
Clearly you have never had to put on full winter gear in your life.
The number I saw was 3.1 million.
At some point, there needs to be a revolt against content producers
This is why pirating is so strong in the first place.
Plumbers and electricians need a customer base that is more than plumbers and electricians. Preferably commercial.
Socialist capitalism is probably where the balance is.
I was referring to the mention of 60 hour work weeks.
So now the question becomes... If they had used a Microsoft sanctioned code base would it have been any different? This is why I was a bit surprised Microsoft bought Minecraft.
So I must ask... what older person (with a family) could ever work there even if accepted?
There is no conspiracy. Companies get the labor where it is the cheapest for amount of work done. Governments aren't requiring companies to do it, they just aren't willing to introduce protectionist measures.