Every time I hear something about pedestrian being killed by something self-driving, it begins to irk me as to why are we pushing for such and such technology.
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
782 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
58885 readers
3675 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because it is generally proven to save lifes. You'll never hear of "thanks for the auto-brake system no one got injured and everything was boring as usual" but it happened a lot (also to me in first person).
I don't like Musk but in general its a good thing to push self driving cars IMO. I drive 2 hours per day and the amount of time where I see retarded people doing retarded stuff at the wheel is crazy.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
I purchased FSD when it was 8k. What a crock of shit. When I sold the car, that was this only gave the car value after 110k miles and it was only $1500 at most.
In five years guys!!
Really fucking stupid that we as a society intentionally choose to fuck around and find out rather than find out before we fuck around.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Musk has said that humans drive with only eyesight, so cars should be able to drive with just cameras.
This of course assumes 1) that cameras are just as good as eyes (they're not) and 2) that the processing of visual data that the human brain does can be replicated by a machine, which seems highly dubious given that we only partially understand how humans process visual data to make decisions.
Finally, it assumes that the current rate of human-caused crashes is acceptable. Which it isn't. We tolerate crashes because we can't improve people without unrealistic expense. In an automated system, if a bit of additional hardware can significantly reduce crashes it's irrational not to do it.
If the camera system + software results in being 1% safer than a human, and a given human can't afford the lidar version, society is still better off with the human using the camera-based FSD than driving manually. Elon being a piece of shit doesn't detract from this fact.
But, yes, a lot of "ifs" in there, and obviously he did this to cut costs or supply chain or blahblah
Lidar or other tech will be more relevant once we've raised the floor (everyone getting the additional safety over manual driving) and other FSDs become more mainstream (competition)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is directly a result of Elon's edict that Tesla cars don't use lidar. If you aren't aware Elon set that as a requirement at the beginning of Tesla's self driving project because he didn't want to spend the money on lidar for all Tesla cars.
His "first principles" logic is that humans don't use lidar therefore self driving should be able to be accomplished without (expensive) enhanced vision tools. While this statement has some modicum of truth, it's obviously going to trade off safely in situations where vision is compromised. Think fog or sunlight shining in your cameras / eyes or a person running across the street at night wearing all black. There are obvious scenarios where lidar is a massive safety advantage, but Elon made a decision for $$ to not have that. This sounds like a direct and obvious outcome of that edict.
His “first principles” logic is that humans don’t use lidar therefore self driving should be able to be accomplished without (expensive) enhanced vision tools.
This kind of idiocy is why people tried to build airplanes with flapping wings. Way too many people thought that the best way to create a plane was to just copy what nature did with birds. Nature showed it was possible, so just copy nature.
To be fair, we achieved flight by copying nature. Once we realized the important part was the shape of a wing more than the flapping.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Regarding point number 2, I have no doubt we'll be able to develop systems that process visual/video data as well as or better than people. I just know we aren't there yet, and Tesla certainly isn't.
I like to come at the argument from the other direction though; humans drive with eyesight because that's all we have. If I could be equipped with sonar or radar or lidar, of fucking course I'd use it, wouldn't you?
Humans move with only feet so cars should be limited to using feet. And only 2 of them.
Well building battlemechs does seem like the obvious next step on Elon's progression
You mean promising to build battlemechs, and fucking around for 5 years while grifting his stock valuation sky-high, then coming forward with a cheap robot that can't even walk?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Also, on a final note...
Why the fuck would you limit yourself to only human senses when you have the capability to add more of any sense you want??
If you have the option to add something that humans don't have, why wouldn't you? As an example, humans don't have gps either, but it's very useful to have in a car
Because a global pandemic broke your sensor supply chain and you still want to sell cars with FSD anyway, so cameras-only it is!
Unfortunately the answer to that is: Elon's cheap and Radar is expensive. Not so expensive that you can't get it in a base model Civic though, which just makes it that much more absurd.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fuck Elon musk.
But self-driving is one of the most needed technologies to aim for in the near future. And it's a shame that as American space industry it has , apparently, let be in the hands of a lunatic.
The potential to reduce road mortality. And to give back to humans thousands of hours back of their time (you can do other things while not driving).
I don't really care about the philosophical question on who is to blame if a self driving car run over one person if road mortality got statistically reduced by a big value thanks to the technology.
The anti technology I see on some supposedly progressive people nowadays really scares me. Bad omen. It's like having a choice between rich conservatives and poor conservatives, but only conservatives nonetheless.
Why is it the most needed though?
I'm not really sold on the importance of it anymore tbh. It was a cool scifi dream but driving is not even at the top 1000 issues we need solving right now.
Be easier to automate various types of rail.
As stated in other comment of mine. Public transport/walkikg is good for high density cities.
Not everyone would be happy living in such environment. I fact I think most people won't. Low density environment have a need for cars. And I think if cars are needed, they'd better be electric and self driving.
Then it's a difference of opinion, I think they would be happier with better public transport.
It could be measured I suppose.
Giving completely free will without economic pressure most people would chose one environment or the other.
I suppose there's enough statistical data on the world to make such analysis. Not that I'm going to do it. But I think it could be measurable what people chose when money is not a factor, as in I need to live X because I don't have money to live in Y.
Anyway it's almost a fact that there would be people that would love to live in one place and some people on the other. So best solution could probably be good public transport in the city and self driving cars in the countryside.
best solution could probably be good public transport in the city and self driving cars in the countryside.
You don't even need self driving if it's mostly just the countryside. That's just not a lot of people and the resources required to get it working would be better spent on building mass transit and walkable areas in cities where people actually live (and thus where culture and economy actually happen)
My country already have mass transit and walkable areas really.
But people who chose to live far away from cities because cities give them anxiety also have rights and deserve nice things.
I think a lack of availability is what is stopping the free market from choosing the better form of transportation.
That’s just a train/bus with extra steps and far more risk. Cities with cars as the main mode of transport are still ugly places to live.
I live in what is supposedly taught as the better mobility solution. A dense european city.
It's true, I can go everywhere walking and by public transport.. and it sucks.
Such density to allow for good public transport means living in apartments like ants, instead of houses.
I like walking but in winter or summer it can be miserable. Buses you get really tired of very quickly, crowded, crazy people, smells, having to be on foot because no seats, dizziness, and in big cities pickpocketing. It's a lot of misery IMHO.
I've live like this many decades and I cannot see the time I can move out of the city, well knowing I'll need a car for everything because lower densities does not allow for walking/good public transport. But I find higher densities just miserable to live in.
As such I would love to have self driving cars. Seems such a life quality improvement.
oh so you're just an unhappy person
I'm unhappy of sharing this world with people with such low empathy, yes.
load more comments
(2 replies)