[Drover]

Originally Posted by unf0rgiven6262

Yea, I thought the same thing. It's really totally pointless if you have to sit there ready at any moment. May as well just drive yourself.

The point is three-fold:

1. Reduce accidents/driver error
2. Reduce driver fatigue
3. Once a critical mass of semi-autonomous cars is reached, to improve traffic flow.

[unf0rgiven6262]

Originally Posted by Drover

The point is three-fold:

1. Reduce accidents/driver error
2. Reduce driver fatigue
3. Once a critical mass of semi-autonomous cars is reached, to improve traffic flow.

1. I can see the accidents piece being valuable. Then again, half the reason people have the cars they do is because they're fun to drive. I think we seriously don't know where to draw the line with technology. Is turning everything into a roped off museum exhibit what we really want?

2. I really don't know how much less fatigued people will be. The fatigue is really due to having to focus for so long on the road. Which is something you will still be required to do. It's not as if my arm wears out from turning a steering wheel.

3. Yea, that's probably true. We could probably raise the speed limits too in that case.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by unf0rgiven6262

1. I can see the accidents piece being valuable. Then again, half the reason people have the cars they do is because they're fun to drive. I think we seriously don't know where to draw the line with technology. Is turning everything into a roped off museum exhibit what we really want?

2. I really don't know how much less fatigued people will be. The fatigue is really due to having to focus for so long on the road. Which is something you will still be required to do. It's not as if my arm wears out from turning a steering wheel.

3. Yea, that's probably true. We could probably raise the speed limits too in that case.

With regard to point #2, testers who have done long-distance testing report a substantial reduction in fatigue, which wasn't really a major driving force behind developing the technology but is a nice bonus. Scanning the road while the car does everything else takes a lot less concentration than doing it all yourself.

[unf0rgiven6262]

Originally Posted by Drover

With regard to point #2, testers who have done long-distance testing report a substantial reduction in fatigue, which wasn't really a major driving force behind developing the technology but is a nice bonus. Scanning the road while the car does everything else takes a lot less concentration than doing it all yourself.

Sure, I believe it. I also believe they aren't nearly as ready to jump in and take the wheel as one may believe though. Perhaps while they're testing the car the guy is really attentive but you know as well as I do that the average driver won't just be sitting there scanning the road like a good Samaritan.

[m73m95]

Originally Posted by Drover

With regard to point #2, testers who have done long-distance testing report a substantial reduction in fatigue, which wasn't really a major driving force behind developing the technology but is a nice bonus. Scanning the road while the car does everything else takes a lot less concentration than doing it all yourself.

Which is the #1 reason for this being retarded.

The car drives itself, but you still have to be completely aware...why not just drive the car yourself? And, if you don't want to drive the car, then you're going to get extremely bored, and your focus will wander.

If you're a passenger in a car (any car, with another person driving), are you helping drive? Or are you looking at the blonde with big boobs in the car next to you? OR are you looking for an In-N-Out burger?

I understand these are just test cars....but the dude "behind the wheel" isn't paying enough attention to control the car for the unexpected.



Also, what about ice? We don't have to worry about it here, but when the "self driven" car gets to Colorado, in January, and slides on the ice... "HAL" won't be able to cope the same way a human could.



This is just a conversation about geeks giving computers WAY more credit than they deserve (for 2012 anyway), and the human brain less.

Don't get me wrong..I am extremely tech savvy. I love computers, and what they are capable of. But in reality, we're still a LOOOOOOONG way off from making any computer as smart as the human brain. Just a simple fact is...we can build computers, program them, and have them do ordinary tasks. Yet we actually know such a tiny amount about our own brain, its almost comical.

Typically the human brain is linearly rated at ~100 million MIPS. For reference, IBM's Deep Blue (The world champion chess playing super computer) was ~3 million MIPS. Current crop of performance desktop CPUs are ~0.1 million MIPS. The Human brain, for now, is still quite comfortably the most powerful computer known to man.

I have no doubt that eventually we will have a car that drives itself. However, I don't think it will be in my lifetime. There are just far to many variables to contend with, that right now, a computer is not able to account for.

[yellowsnow]

Wait till the insurance companies get ahold of this...They will only insure people who have it and use it. Big Brother gets to ride along. And the nannying won't stop there either. If you are say over 60, disabled, diagnosed with some kind of chronic disease, you will be required to have this 'feature'.

I'm not at all sure about the fatigue thing. I think I would tend to get bored just sitting there. But it would be great to put the car on auto-pilot and sleep through Nebraska. You could tell the car to wake you up at Council Bluffs.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by m73m95

Typically the human brain is linearly rated at ~100 million MIPS. For reference, IBM's Deep Blue (The world champion chess playing super computer) was ~3 million MIPS. Current crop of performance desktop CPUs are ~0.1 million MIPS. The Human brain, for now, is still quite comfortably the most powerful computer known to man.

I have no doubt that eventually we will have a car that drives itself. However, I don't think it will be in my lifetime. There are just far to many variables to contend with, that right now, a computer is not able to account for.

I agree with most of your position. Except for one thing -- bad drivers who obviously don't use so much as 1% of their brain power. If computer-assisted cars kept people from driving like maniacs (for instance, maintaining a safe following distance even though the troglodyte driver wants to tailgate), then I can see a place for this technology.

[kimba01]

Originally Posted by m73m95

Which is the #1 reason for this being retarded.

The car drives itself, but you still have to be completely aware...why not just drive the car yourself? And, if you don't want to drive the car, then you're going to get extremely bored, and your focus will wander.

If you're a passenger in a car (any car, with another person driving), are you helping drive? Or are you looking at the blonde with big boobs in the car next to you? OR are you looking for an In-N-Out burger?

Are you kidding? The driver is looking at the blonde with big boobs too! In that case it could be a plus!

[m73m95]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I agree with most of your position. Except for one thing -- bad drivers who obviously don't use so much as 1% of their brain power. If computer-assisted cars kept people from driving like maniacs (for instance, maintaining a safe following distance even though the troglodyte driver wants to tailgate), then I can see a place for this technology.

Originally Posted by kimba01

Are you kidding? The driver is looking at the blonde with big boobs too! In that case it could be a plus!

Yes, a computer is slower, and might not have the same "awareness" as a human.... but I agree, Pentiums aren't easily distracted by other Pentiums with big boobs Thing is though, I think the driving errors people make can be made up for by making it 100x harder to get a drivers license. Our tests and requirements for driving in this country are a joke. 4 way stops baffle people.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by m73m95

Which is the #1 reason for this being retarded.

OK, if you say so.

Originally Posted by m73m95

The car drives itself, but you still have to be completely aware...why not just drive the car yourself?

If you want to, go ahead.

Originally Posted by m73m95

And, if you don't want to drive the car, then you're going to get extremely bored, and your focus will wander.

If you believe that will be a problem for you, then drive the car yourself.

Originally Posted by m73m95

If you're a passenger in a car (any car, with another person driving), are you helping drive? Or are you looking at the blonde with big boobs in the car next to you? OR are you looking for an In-N-Out burger?

It is not, and never has been, the passenger's responsibility to help drive.

Originally Posted by m73m95

I understand these are just test cars....but the dude "behind the wheel" isn't paying enough attention to control the car for the unexpected.

And you base this conclusion on..... what, exactly?

Originally Posted by m73m95

Also, what about ice? We don't have to worry about it here, but when the "self driven" car gets to Colorado, in January, and slides on the ice... "HAL" won't be able to cope the same way a human could.

So the countless billions spent over the decades developing and implementing stability control systems has been for naught. Check.

Originally Posted by m73m95

This is just a conversation about geeks giving computers WAY more credit than they deserve (for 2012 anyway), and the human brain less.


Don't get me wrong..I am extremely tech savvy. I love computers, and what they are capable of. But in reality, we're still a LOOOOOOONG way off from making any computer as smart as the human brain. Just a simple fact is...we can build computers, program them, and have them do ordinary tasks. Yet we actually know such a tiny amount about our own brain, its almost comical.

Typically the human brain is linearly rated at ~100 million MIPS. For reference, IBM's Deep Blue (The world champion chess playing super computer) was ~3 million MIPS. Current crop of performance desktop CPUs are ~0.1 million MIPS. The Human brain, for now, is still quite comfortably the most powerful computer known to man.

The human brain also has to perform numerous tasks simultaneously while automated cars have one task: drive.

Originally Posted by m73m95

I have no doubt that eventually we will have a car that drives itself. However, I don't think it will be in my lifetime. There are just far to many variables to contend with, that right now, a computer is not able to account for.

That's why the driver is still ultimately responsible and can override the automated systems at any time.