Will self driving cars really be a very common thing?

tru.

motorized vehicles will never replace horses. there is just some terrain that only a horse would be able to navigate.

why not change the terrain?

the real reason they won't become common I think is that many cities witll ban them once they realize how they'll fuck with public transport revenue

>No amount of machine learning can prepare you for every single possible occurrence that happens on the road.
the domain of machine learning deals with the concept of generating a function that transforms any given input from a domain into an output

>You hit that gay ass philosophical dilemma in which you decide what to do if someone sprints in front of your car - swerve and risk your life, or plow through em and kill em.
that dilemma is so unrealistic that effectively its nothing but liberal arts masturbation

>They pose a giant ass security risk. These cars will have to be connected to some kind of network, which makes them inherently vulnerable to remote exploitation. Whats stopping North Korea or some shit from telling all the cars to floor it.
selinux will stop that.

>What's stopping someone from modding their driverless car to fuck with driverless cars around them.
the law

>What's stopping everyone from spray painting spooky ass designs on stop signs and causing accidents for the lols.
the law. also, these cars dont need physical stop signs

>What's gonna happen once we get used to driverless cars for 20+ years and suddenly something happens and we gotta revert back to driving manually. Oops, no one knows how to drive!
what kind of scenario could cause that

>It's a good thought, but it's inherently just too fucking risky for me to support. Yes, you can have a manual kill switch for when shit gets spooky, but im 90% sure 90% of america will get in their driverless cars and fall asleep.
the whole fucking point of a self driving car is that you can sleep in it while it gets you to work

not sure if im getting trolled, but i imagine i am.
if youre genuinely curious i might be able to answer any further questions you might have on the topic.

>everyone will forget how to ride a horse!

we could ban man driven cars from operating during rush hour, then from driving during weekdays, and then completely.

its being pushed-for, hard, because in many countries, the car is the last deadly weapon in the hands of the people

they want control of your car, they want killswitches built-in, they want GPS built-in, and those things WILL come as part of the self-driving system, its all about taking power and freedom away from you

"so just dont get a self-driving car!"
-moron, 2018

first theyll give tax cuts to SDC owners, then lower insurance, then they'll start punishing owners of non SDCs with higher taxes and insurance, after a few years of this they'll start labelling non-SDC owners as "irresponsible, before eventually requiring special licences to own a non-SDC

this will happen over the next 15 years

you mean 50 years?

>retarded non-arguments barfed up by idiot boomers day in and day out because they hate change
Here's a pro tip, fagtard:

Self-driving cars are going to become the new norm, and within 10-15 years (maybe sooner), it will be weird *not* to have a car that drives itself.

Get in line with all the retards saying
>radio will never take off
>TV will never take off
>color TV will never take off
>computers will never take off
>the internet will never take off
>LCDs will never take off
>electric vehicles will never take off

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

Attached: 1526802790826.jpg (251x242, 12K)

I am.

I dont understand your first point. You can train your machine learning on practical things but id imagine an event such as someone jumping on your car or throwing something at it would yeild some undefined behavior.

Second point, that dillema isnt unrealistic at all. People cross roads without looking all the time. Im slamming on my breaks every other week at this point.

selinux?

the law wont stop anyone. It's still a safety and security risk. It's also the law not to make wide turns and jaywalk but everyone does it anyway.

6th point, the thing you replied "selinux will stop that" to.

Last point, you didn't even counter my argument. I said the problem is that you'll fall asleep, and you replied by saying the whole purpose is to fall asleep, so i dont follow your point.

>they want control of your car, they want killswitches built-in, they want GPS built-in, and those things WILL come as part of the self-driving system, its all about taking power and freedom away from you

not everybody has a hand-me-down barn innawoods and is stocking up on moist nuggets.

some of us are part of that society you detest so much.

Thats a shitty comparison.

How are my argumets non-arguments and barfed up grandpa? You didn't address literally anything I said, and replied with some bullshit quotes saying "x will never take off". If these problems can be addressed and solved, then hell yeah go driverless cars.

why wont they work?
> Because the terrain wont allow it!

Possible solution? Build roads! What did we do? We built roads!

See what happens when someone proposes problems with a technology and we find solutions?

>grandpa
Uh oh, looks like you used the same response NPCs used when being called NPCs. "I-if I just say it b-back to them, then I w-win!"

Anyway, your arguments boil down to
>what if people break the law
and
>driving algorithms couldn't possibly cover every single potential situation, therefore they won't work at all

Both of which, are retarded. Grandpa.

Don't bother replying.

Attached: 1526841165568.jpg (482x381, 160K)

lol your biased ass is weird as fuck

Maybe if public transport had more convenient options, they would actually be able to compete against expensive self driving cars

>I am.
>I dont understand your first point. You can train your machine learning on practical things but id imagine an event such as someone jumping on your car or throwing something at it would yeild some undefined behavior.
the very simplest of machine learning AI (super simplified):
teach a computer to add 1 to a real number:
1) pick the right model, eg. y=mx+b
2) find some training data: [1,2] [5,9] [-123,-122]
3) train it (i,e, solve for m and b, such that the error is minized)
4) test the resulting function.

now this micro AI can solve the problem from any number in the domain we specified (a real number). doesn't matter what it is, as long as the underlying architecture supports the computation.

undefined behavior, as such, doesn't exist. you can throw in an imaginary number and see what happens, but you probably won't, because the sensor can only deliver real numbers.

most machine vision algorithms are tuned to the specific sensors that are used.

>Second point, that dillema isnt unrealistic at all. People cross roads without looking all the time. Im slamming on my breaks every other week at this point.

did you honestly have to make a choice whether you should drive into that person, sacrifice a baby to satan, or kill yourself instead?

>selinux?

its a joke. just because the car is connected to the internet, doesnt mean the system can be remote controlled. i dont see how it cant be in the car makers best interest to ensure that they cant

>the law wont stop anyone. It's still a safety and security risk. It's also the law not to make wide turns and jaywalk but everyone does it anyway.

if you cause a car to crash and youre on tape for being responsible...? its like shining a laser on a police helicopter.

post is too long.

>undefined behavior, as such, doesn't exist.

Throw the letter g at it. Throw a string. Throw an integer that's too large at it. Buffer overflow that hoe. You're telling me that thing is invulnerable to error?

Your second point is valid, I agree.

> i dont see how it cant be in the car makers best interest to ensure that they cant

Thats the thing - they can't man. I'm sure the CIA ensured there could be no unauthorized outside access, but look what happened. What's stopping a whole ass country with unlimited resources to fake an update patch that causes chaos.

And lastly, just because someone is held responsible, doesnt mean they're gonna stop. People will die here. Also, are we going to put a camera at every stop sign in the country? Whose to say their modded car didnt get hacked? I still dont understand.

>6th point, the thing you replied "selinux will stop that" to.
i didnt take your point seriously. how did the first people drive the first cars? 1) its not that unintuitive, and 2) is not like we dont have more serious issues when hypothetically the entire internet collapses or some other doomsday scenario. you cant account for everything.

>Last point, you didn't even counter my argument. I said the problem is that you'll fall asleep, and you replied by saying the whole purpose is to fall asleep, so i dont follow your point.

the kill switch is just there to alleviate YOUR fears, not to protect anyone. sure, were not there yet, but eventually we should get there.

an argument/example in your favour was when that semi autonomous uber ran over a cracked out lady in the middle of the night. I agree with you that this is unacceptable, but if they didnt skimp on technology, this wouldnt have happened (not that a human driver could have avoided it, but I do think the standards for robotic drivers should be higher. this also ties in to the opinion that the probability of encountering a moral dillemma is/should be negligible.)

So that's what freedom sounds like

>there is just some terrain that only a horse would be able to navigate
I'm pretty sure US soldiers used horses in some mountainous parts of Afghanistan.
It just werks

>they want control of your car, they want killswitches built-in, they want GPS built-in
But that's already the case. You can't start your car if the computer is down. You already have GPS built-in. You have some meme services using mobile data. If they want to shut you down they can already

>you cant account for everything.

A private company with a single attack vector that could cause a massive terrorist attack seems like something pretty large to account for.

>the kill switch is just there to alleviate YOUR fears

Nah dude, it's to protect everyone around you when your shit fails.

Not gonna use any self-driving car meme until manufacturers take full responsibility in case their car kills somebody. Not before that.

none of that shit is in my car

noting but ad hominem there, i know this is Jow Forums, but damn, standards are dropping around here

>>undefined behavior, as such, doesn't exist.
>Throw the letter g at it. Throw a string. Throw an integer that's too large at it.
how can a system produce an integer thats too large for itself? happens occasionally, youre right. Ariane V I think it was.

sure, things will go wrong. stock prices will tank, press releases will be made, and the problem will be patched asap.
Buffer overflow that hoe. You're telling me that thing is invulnerable to error?

im not telling you its invulnerable to error, im saying its resistant to input errors.
>Your second point is valid, I agree.
>> i dont see how it cant be in the car makers best interest to ensure that they cant
>Thats the thing - they can't man. I'm sure the CIA ensured there could be no unauthorized outside access, but look what happened. What's stopping a whole ass country with unlimited resources to fake an update patch that causes chaos.
business interest. im not sure a manufacturer whose cars get hacked will have a good day.
>And lastly, just because someone..
the cameras are in the cars, for the machine vision, etc.
but yeah, people are gonna die, but the whole point is that significantly fewer people are gonna die than are dying currently.

Ignore my first 4 sentences to my first reply. I didnt see this
> any number in the domain we specified (a real number)

But that still doesn't mean the shit's exploit-proof. Im sure every website filters out quotes, so they should be immune to injection, right?

>But that still doesn't mean the shit's exploit-proof. Im sure every website filters out quotes, so they should be immune to injection, right?

thats just shitty programming

You've made good points, and thank you for keeping this professional man.

I just don't trust that we can make a system that wouldn't be the target for a massive terrorist attack later.

>but yeah, people are gonna die, but the whole point is that significantly fewer people are gonna die than are dying currently.

That's a very good point and swayed my opinion a little

I just can't see it happening without a standardised road circuit and no human drivers on the road.

>What's stopping someone from modding their driverless car to fuck with driverless cars around them.
What's stopping someone from modding their regular car to fuck with regular cars around them?
>What's stopping everyone from spray painting spooky ass designs on stop signs and causing accidents for the lols.
What's stopping everyone from doing that today?

Attached: 1543489884422.jpg (474x451, 25K)

But also

>the cameras are in the cars, for the machine vision, etc.

I don't think every inch of the road will be covered by cars at all times. Also, if something illegal does happen, could cops just access your car's camera feed? If they have a backdoor to that, whats stopping them from having access to your whole car? Im sure that shit will also have access to your texts n stuff.

>What's stopping someone from modding their regular car to fuck with regular cars around them?
Because it'll probably them you too.
>What's stopping everyone from doing that today?
Because there's no reason to.

Because it'll probably *kill them too.
Unless we're talking about weird ass spike strips n shit. But if that's the case, we know exactly what car did it and can apprehend them. How can you apprehend a sneaky ass hacker hacking cars around them? You dont know whose doing it.

>Because it'll probably them you too

Attached: 1516293141995.png (645x729, 91K)

Not until we get rid of humies so they can't fuck everything up, i.e. never.

The self driving car failed, just like how VR was hyped and failed once people realized it was just a cellphone screen strapped to your face with some plastic lenses. There are no self driving cars in existence. The Tesla will follow lines on the road but people have already died just from faint repainted lines. Machine learning is a giant misnomer. You can throw as many millions of lidar videos at them as you want, it might be able to look like it knows what it's doing a lot of times but there are so many edge cases that you can't rely on it with something so dangerous as driving. The Google self driving car was hyped about 8 years ago and they said back then it would be ready in 3 years. Where are they now? Yeah not going to happen. We can't even get regular software to work and not have millions of security vulnerabilities.

yeah I'm a little retarded please be patient with me

>video game developers have been simulating driving for decades on consumer hardware
>infinite amount of CCTV and dashcam footage from around the world for machines and people to process
>hobbyists make self driving RC toys for decades
>people think a device and system designed to do this is impossible to make

>What's stopping everyone from spray painting spooky ass designs on stop signs and causing accidents for the lols.
lol, good idea I might do this in 10-20 years

theverge.com/2018/12/5/18126103/waymo-one-self-driving-taxi-service-ride-safety-alphabet-cost-app
The project was hyped way too soon but it's making progress

Attached: vpavic_181128_3122_0118.jpg (1400x933, 118K)

Autopilot mode in normal cars will be likely the best and most plausible scenario. Self driving cars on current public roadways have alot of responsibility to shoulder. Such as damaged roads, dirt roads, precise locations, ethical dillemas, and sharing the road with non-autonomous vehicles.

Making separate roadways for self driving cars is probably the best implementation. But I still don't understand why you would do this when you can just build a fucking train that can is ostensibly easier to manage, can go faster and not require much new research.

Personal cars are just personal trains. If you want mass transit cars, just make a fuckin train >>

I will add this. My team is doing security testing on autonomous cars using platooning. And it's hilariously easy to fuck with a platoon of cars and cause them to wreck. You could driving around holding a microwave oven out your window and probably cause an accident to these things. Or impersonate a platoon leader and cause everyone to brake and crash.

Also I Dont trust anyone who is building 100% autonomous cars. Google is just doing it to track people more and sell adspace in your car probably. Which just sounds like a fucking subway so why let this happen.

>whats stopping someone from ______
>the law
yes because we live in a utopia where everyone follows the law
>What's stopping everyone from spray painting spooky ass designs on stop signs and causing accidents for the lols.
>What's stopping everyone from doing that today?
the point is the spray paint could potentially fuck with the car's ability to recognize a stop sign.

>the point is the spray paint could potentially fuck with the car's ability to recognize a stop sign.

literally how

regardless, it's like driving around a town with high beams on. if you cause an accident, you're culpable, not the dude who ran the stop light.

But there is always a driver in the car with it still because it gets into so many situations that it doesn't know what to do so it just brakes and puts on the hazards and makes the human drive. it is confined to one small area of a city that has perfect weather and they had to map out every square inch beforehand. There are thousands of dashcam videos of people driving on the same road as these things and they constantly fuck up, like trying to turn into a parked car.

>doing security testing on autonomous cars using platooning
>You could driving around holding a microwave oven out your window and probably cause an accident to these things. Or impersonate a platoon leader and cause everyone to brake and crash
Are you sure you should give that kind of details over the internet?

youtube.com/watch?v=spw176TZ7-8

That is a pretty poor argument; there have been plenty of technologies hailed as the next big thing that flopped, and the naysayers were right. Hydrogen-fuel cell cars, 3d televisions, better than CD music disc formats, that mess with Theranos, and so on. It is too early to see if self driving cars will pan out or not.

Attached: WP.jpg (1920x1080, 158K)

> Hydrogen-fuel cell cars, 3d televisions, better than CD music disc formats
I never supported any of these, and knew they would never take off

>that mess with Theranos
Especially that shit.

Honestly anyone who invested in Theranos should be executed.

Do you really think there were no roads before cars?

The thing is public transportation is a giant money pit for almost every city in America. In some cities it would literally be cheaper for the city to lease econoboxes for people than to run the public transportation system. So if self-driving taxi's get cheap enough to handle the poor, blind, and tourists that can't really use a regular car, cities could shut their systems down and save lots of money. Granted the public transport unions would fight this tooth & nail.

Attached: 4.jpg (960x642, 111K)

Search for geohot and his 1k self driving kit

That self driving uber death earlier this year suggests no. The system registered the pedestrian 6 seconds before hitting them and failed to act.

I would pay any rate to have a rider service without human interaction. Please Isis make this happen.

Attached: WE 800px-Isis.svg.png (800x1755, 136K)

>letting people program my car and trust it will always work when nobody can even make an OS that doesnt crash
Thanks Ill stay analog.