Inside Roborace - Episode One

[Blimey]

I'll gladly be called lazy if I could spend 1h a day for anything else than driving to work/home.

like crashing a car or something like that.

 

[Andy 'Mars Bar' Graham]

This is a second thread you've made this claim but haven't yet said why you think they're stupid? Almost all big automotive companies are developing them and there is some demand for self-driving cars so they can't possibly be stupid or useless can they..?

A- The idea of them are completely stupid. There are much cheaper ways of travelling around then buying a car you will never drive.
B- There will be probably lots of collisions on normal roads as the AI drive with human drivers (which would be carnage).
C- A racing series where the cars actions are just programmed rather than people using instinct seriously doesn't excite me
D- Other faults including an increase in motion sickness.
E- What if the GPS goes wrong or doesn't actually take you to the right direction. Then what?
F- More can go wrong technically with a driverless car.

There are lots of reasons why I think their a stupid waste of time, which is why I think the series is a waste of time

 

[Ghoults]

A- The idea of them are completely stupid. There are much cheaper ways of travelling around then buying a car you will never drive.
B- There will be probably lots of collisions on normal roads as the AI drive with human drivers (which would be carnage).
C- A racing series where the cars actions are just programmed rather than people using instinct seriously doesn't excite me
D- Other faults including an increase in motion sickness.
E- What if the GPS goes wrong or doesn't actually take you to the right direction. Then what?
F- More can go wrong technically with a driverless car.

There are lots of reasons why I think their a stupid waste of time, which is why I think the series is a waste of time

A. How come? Why is a car that drives you worse than a car you need to drive yourself? Some people never own a car and uses buses, taxis and trains to commute
B. AI drivers are already safer than human drivers. The biggest reason for accidents is human errors. The AI simply does less errors and creates less errors which can be deadly for others.
C. It is not meant to replace current motor racing but add new style of racing
D. A huge issues for things like buses, taxis, trains and airplanes... actually, it is not an issue at all.
E. If your car breaks you will not be able to drive it regardless whether the driver is you or a computer.
F. Technical issues with cars are rarely fatal. AI cars are more complex for sure. But in the end human errors are more deadly and happen more than AI errors.

Driverless cars are the future because it allows everybody to move. You don't need a license. You don't even need to own a car. All you need is some subscription based service that allows you to use a car. Which can be cheaper, safer and more convenient. Sure I have reservations about it myself because I like driving but I would not like to die in a car crash either because someone drove through a red light or drove drunk and crashed into my car.

 

[Blimey]

A. How come? Why is a car that drives you worse than a car you need to drive yourself? Some people never own a car and uses buses, taxis and trains to commute
B. AI drivers are already safer than human drivers. The biggest reason for accidents is human errors. The AI simply does less errors and creates less errors which can be deadly for others.

So if the AI breaks down but the car is still driveable, how is the passenger who doesn't know how to drive supposed to drive the car? Some people don't own a car and uses public transport is because its better for the environment, more people in 1 vehicle > 1 person in 1 vehicle. Sure there are some bad drivers who crash, but from the current virtual AI is a good example of what real life could be, a disaster. Tesla's self-driving stuff already has caused enough accidents.

 

[Ghoults]

So if the AI breaks down but the car is still driveable, how is the passenger who doesn't know how to drive supposed to drive the car?

So if the gps breaks down then the car just drives back where it come from using the same route it drove there where it is now. How do you drive your car when the car won't start? Self driving cars are not the only kind of cars that sometimes suffer from failures.

Some people don't own a car and uses public transport is because its better for the environment, more people in 1 vehicle > 1 person in 1 vehicle.

Which doesn't cause them to feel ill or become nauseated like you implied will happen in driverless cars.

Sure there are some bad drivers who crash, but from the current virtual AI is a good example of what real life could be, a disaster. Tesla's self-driving stuff already has caused enough accidents.

Are you for real? Tesla's self driving stuff is already safer than human driver. And those "some bad drivers who crash" kill tens of thousands of people every year. Have you done any research into this topic because you literally know nothing about it at all?

Ai in a racing game is not good representation of real life self driving cars lmao.

 

[Boby Kim]

I saw the video and it is full of tech but it is flat...empty...lifeless...dead...

 

[led00m]

Are you for real? Tesla's self driving stuff is already safer than human driver. And those "some bad drivers who crash" kill tens of thousands of people every year. Have you done any research into this topic because you literally know nothing about it at all?.

Its true, I've only heard of one death in the Tesla SD car! Still dont agree with them haha

 

[TTupsi]

A- The idea of them are completely stupid. There are much cheaper ways of travelling around then buying a car you will never drive.
B- There will be probably lots of collisions on normal roads as the AI drive with human drivers (which would be carnage).
C- A racing series where the cars actions are just programmed rather than people using instinct seriously doesn't excite me
D- Other faults including an increase in motion sickness.
E- What if the GPS goes wrong or doesn't actually take you to the right direction. Then what?
F- More can go wrong technically with a driverless car.

There are lots of reasons why I think their a stupid waste of time, which is why I think the series is a waste of time

A - New tech is always bound to cost more because of the initial development costs. Touch screens on phones were regarded as useless and expensive for over a decade too but are a standard now. I believe self-driving cars will lower the cost of public transport when the buses ans taxis dont need drivers. Fewer people will nees their own car and the car leasing services will replace taxis. Also, how do you know it will be more expwnsive in the first place? There are none publicly available yet...
B - That's why they are still in the development phase and not selling the cars. Overall they will reduce traffic accidents.
C - Personal opinions, doesn't make it useless.
D - What exactly are the other faults? Source for motion sickness? I'd actully like to know if it's true!
E - I'm sure the manufacturers are figuring that oit right as we speak. Easiest solution would be to communicate with other cars around you or have multiple reserve GPS systems. After all, it's a device like any normal car, computer or phone and those are bound to break at some point. What if your car broke down? You'd call a tow truck to get you of course!
F - What do you mean? Examples, sources?. AFAIK human error is the source of more fatal accidents than any technical problem.

 

[Andy 'Mars Bar' Graham]

http://observer.com/2015/06/self-dr...-motion-sickness-often-to-always-study-finds/

See, I do my research.


Driverless cars are bound to be quite expensive to begin with. Electric cars can be quite expensive for example. Because they have more technology, there's more that can go wrong.

Sure, they're probably trying to find a fix to the issue if the GPS takes you to the wrong destination but still think that right now it's quite a big issue. I mean what would you do. You would have to call someone and ask to be collected as your driverless car got lost. Unless there's an option to give you some sort of control so you can actually drive it.

Also how the hell do you expect driverless cars to coexist with cars with human drivers? That's going to cause accidents.

Also surely public transport would get more expensive if they used AI as they spend millions replacing human drivers with the AI. Also that'll lead to people losing jobs which isn't good.

Don't like the idea of them, never have done and never will do.

 

[TTupsi]

http://observer.com/2015/06/self-dr...-motion-sickness-often-to-always-study-finds/

See, I do my research.


Driverless cars are bound to be quite expensive to begin with. Electric cars can be quite expensive for example. Because they have more technology, there's more that can go wrong.

Sure, they're probably trying to find a fix to the issue if the GPS takes you to the wrong destination but still think that right now it's quite a big issue. I mean what would you do. You would have to call someone and ask to be collected as your driverless car got lost. Unless there's an option to give you some sort of control so you can actually drive it.

Also how the hell do you expect driverless cars to coexist with cars with human drivers? That's going to cause accidents.

Also surely public transport would get more expensive if they used AI as they spend millions replacing human drivers with the AI. Also that'll lead to people losing jobs which isn't good.

Don't like the idea of them, never have done and never will do.

Interesting read, thanks for the link. However, the article doesn't give definite answers to the questions, rather the study has only found that because drivers of traditional cars are planning to engage in activities that increase the chance of motion sickness, there is a likelihood of them experiencing motion sickness. Certainly something to study more surely.

I repeat myself regarding the price. New technology is bound to cost more because it is new. I wouldn't necessarily buy into the "more technology" claim. Sure there is brand new tech that will break more frequently because it is in beta testing phase. It's like claiming petrol engines are stupid because they could break more often than horse wagons. The more vulnerable to breaking just isn't a valid point.

I'm 100% sure traditional cars will co-exist with driverless cars for at least 25 years. You will have a choice of manual control in the future if you dont like the idea of totaly autonomous car. Humans can get lost and traditional cars break too so I don't really get the point. I'm also sure the self-driving cars will give the driver feedback all the time so it doesnt get lost.

Human drivers cause accidents when driving with self-driving cars And that's why they are testing them atm. TO reduce the likelihood of accidents. No one is saying they are perfect yet.

People losing jobs is the most stupid reason not to develop new technology. All the food you eat, clothes you wear and devices you use are mostly made by machines. Some would lose their jobs yes, but the transition will also create new jobs. That's just natural evolution of our world. We aren't hunter-gatherers anymore.

 

[Gringo]

Some would lose their jobs yes, but the transition will also create new jobs.

What fantasy.

History has proven this is simply not true. Automation creates profit, not jobs.

How will robots building and repairing robots create jobs?

 

[AndrewBo]

@Gringo
Wrong:

Study of census results in England and Wales since 1871 finds rise of machines has been a job creator rather than making working humans obsolete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is just in England and Wales, not worldwide.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ore-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census

 

[Gringo]

Wrong:

This story is not new... search the topic and you will find decades of positive articles on the subject.

I stand by my statement.

 

[Gringo]

I don't mean to poke the bear, but I can't resist.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robot-reporters-replace-journalists-one-9069938

 

[dodo197301]

I am for!

 

[TTupsi]

What fantasy.

History has proven this is simply not true. Automation creates profit, not jobs.

How will robots building and repairing robots create jobs?

I think my meaning was lost in translation. I didn't meant the transition would create more jobs than are lost, no one can predict that.

I meant that it will create new jobs like for example: electric autonomous public transport will make upkeep cheaper (no drivers), allowing for more vehicles in use -> more work for vehicle maintenance; coordination of the autonomous vehicles and their routes will also require workforce; the development and building of those vehicles requires workforce etc.
Most importantly cheaper public transport will allow cities and municipalities (at least here in Finland) to spend their money in more important things like healthcare/education/whatever instead of driver salary.

Everything has an effect in everything so nothing is as straight-forward as thinking that "autonomous cars replace bus and taxi drivers -> jobs lost". There are much more levels to that and I'm definitely not an expert in that field. All I know is that developing new technology is always a good thing. Some could say that development of atomic bombs was bad but I disagree. Sure, actually using the atomic bombs was a huge mistake but the Manhattan Project and the similar projects after have given us so much knowledge especially in medicine (cancer treatments, radiation) that they aren't just inherently bad but much, much more complex as a whole.