|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | splashmtn wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | Self driving technology will be the biggest disruptor since the internet. A lot of people will be out of a job if and when it gets perfected. |
LINK 
Remember when you could dial 411 and get a live operator? Our species is becoming dependent on mechanism. How many phone numbers do you have committed to memory or in an old fashion little black book?
I'm a victim of technology dependency in many cases.
If I lost or damaged my phone I'd be up ish creek if I didn't have a backup. I now have all numbers stored on a computer. I also have a printed list I keep in my personal hard files.
How many in the forum have one of these?
I'm all for technology but have angst about becoming to dependent. Sometimes taking the easy way out is not the best way out. LINK |
its not about taking the easy way out. It's utilizing these things as they are meant to be used. to ASSIST.
If you were a billionaire CEO. you personally would never have to memorize all of your clients phone numbers/ contact info. You would have an assistant for that.
This is what tech is to us regulars. We now have the ability to be ceo of our own stuff. Therefore you can utilize an assistant(s) to make you work smarter, not harder.
If I no longer have to use up memory power to hold a bunch of contact info. What else could I be doing with that brain power?
See some believe, if I dont go around memorizing everything like we had to in 1952, my mind will turn into mush. That could happen if you dont exercise your brain doing other activities now that it's freed up doing all of the memorization stuff.
You can now memorize concepts/processes vs all of the specific detail. the detail can be gathered from online sources within seconds much quicker than you ever could and you have access to more things that you could ever hold in your memory as well.
If my car is driving me around(i now have a driver just like a big time CEO). What else could I be doing before I get to my destination?(especially in L.A. traffic) I could be reading something, really paying attention to the scenery /taking it all in,working on some other tasks. |
You're over reacting. The gist is we're getting lazy. |
no, i'm saying You're overreacting. Unless you think CEO's of fortune 500 companies are all lazy. The same assistants they have had for decades the regular joes now have or will soon have that in electronics/computers. The question is how do you CHOOSE to use your assistants?
if i have a car driving me to work and to home every day of the week. I will actually crack open the laptop and get some work done. Now that aint everybody, but thats what I would do. So, am I lazy or am I using my new found assistant wisely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38776
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I do have to agree with splashmtn on that degree....people don't memorize stuff like phone numbers because they don't need to do that anymore. Also we have much more ways to get a hold of somebody other than using the phone....whether it be social media, texting, etc there are more methods of communicating with another person than 10-20 years ago. That being said, I disagree that people are getting lazy....they are just utilizing their brainpower for something else....for example, kids these days know how to code even in grade school...that is something that wasn't even done in previous generations. What we have now are people that are much more computer literate than the generations of students before them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | splashmtn wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | Self driving technology will be the biggest disruptor since the internet. A lot of people will be out of a job if and when it gets perfected. |
LINK
Remember when you could dial 411 and get a live operator? Our species is becoming dependent on mechanism. How many phone numbers do you have committed to memory or in an old fashion little black book?
I'm a victim of technology dependency in many cases.
If I lost or damaged my phone I'd be up ish creek if I didn't have a backup. I now have all numbers stored on a computer. I also have a printed list I keep in my personal hard files.
How many in the forum have one of these?
I'm all for technology but have angst about becoming to dependent. Sometimes taking the easy way out is not the best way out. LINK |
its not about taking the easy way out. It's utilizing these things as they are meant to be used. to ASSIST.
If you were a billionaire CEO. you personally would never have to memorize all of your clients phone numbers/ contact info. You would have an assistant for that.
This is what tech is to us regulars. We now have the ability to be ceo of our own stuff. Therefore you can utilize an assistant(s) to make you work smarter, not harder.
If I no longer have to use up memory power to hold a bunch of contact info. What else could I be doing with that brain power?
See some believe, if I dont go around memorizing everything like we had to in 1952, my mind will turn into mush. That could happen if you dont exercise your brain doing other activities now that it's freed up doing all of the memorization stuff.
You can now memorize concepts/processes vs all of the specific detail. the detail can be gathered from online sources within seconds much quicker than you ever could and you have access to more things that you could ever hold in your memory as well.
If my car is driving me around(i now have a driver just like a big time CEO). What else could I be doing before I get to my destination?(especially in L.A. traffic) I could be reading something, really paying attention to the scenery /taking it all in,working on some other tasks. |
You're over reacting. The gist is we're getting lazy. |
no, i'm saying You're overreacting. Unless you think CEO's of fortune 500 companies are all lazy. The same assistants they have had for decades the regular joes now have or will soon have that in electronics/computers. The question is how do you CHOOSE to use your assistants?
if i have a car driving me to work and to home every day of the week. I will actually crack open the laptop and get some work done. Now that aint everybody, but thats what I would do. So, am I lazy or am I using my new found assistant wisely? |
You're overreacting to the intent of my post that we're getting lazy. That's it. Businesses need technology.
Do we need cars that drive themselves? Do we need robotic butlers? Do we need vacuum cleaners that run themselves? Again, you're reading to much into my posts intent.
Hell, I'm offering an opinion. I think we getting lazy, that's an opinion, I own it. I may be the only one in the forum who eats rib eye steak with potato salad but that me.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersken80 wrote: | | I do have to agree with splashmtn on that degree....people don't memorize stuff like phone numbers because they don't need to do that anymore. Also we have much more ways to get a hold of somebody other than using the phone....whether it be social media, texting, etc there are more methods of communicating with another person than 10-20 years ago. That being said, I disagree that people are getting lazy....they are just utilizing their brainpower for something else....for example, kids these days know how to code even in grade school...that is something that wasn't even done in previous generations. What we have now are people that are much more computer literate than the generations of students before them. |
I'd be lost without my computer. I'm not against technology. My rail is against things that make us lazy, auto vacuums, robotic butlers, cars that drive themselves. I don't know it I'd mow my lawn if I had to use a push mower though it would be great exercise. LINK
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | I do have to agree with splashmtn on that degree....people don't memorize stuff like phone numbers because they don't need to do that anymore. Also we have much more ways to get a hold of somebody other than using the phone....whether it be social media, texting, etc there are more methods of communicating with another person than 10-20 years ago. That being said, I disagree that people are getting lazy....they are just utilizing their brainpower for something else....for example, kids these days know how to code even in grade school...that is something that wasn't even done in previous generations. What we have now are people that are much more computer literate than the generations of students before them. |
I'd be lost without my computer. I'm not against technology. My rail is against things that make us lazy, auto vacuums, robotic butlers, cars that drive themselves. I don't know it I'd mow my lawn if I had to use a push mower though it would be great exercise. LINK |
just because you're use to something doesnt mean you're lazy if you no longer have to do it. lets stick to the thread. How is it, that not driving your car makes you lazy? Now not mowing your lawn, the vacuum.... I'm with you on those real manual tasks.
Driving isnt even good for your body if we're talking about L.A. level commutes. It's like driving trucks for a living. Bad for your back, bad for your knees, bad for your hips. depending on how you situate your right foot. You could have all sorts of issues. I know some people WANT to drive. but is it good for you? not really. Is it being lazy if you didnt? I dont think so.
Now having a bike with a motor could be seen as lazy if you're not commuting a very long distance. Because you're taking way a nice cardio workout. The only reason my heart rate increases when driving in Los Angeles is because some idiot just cut me off with no blinker, or I just got flashed for clearly signalling 2 mins straight to get over so I can get off the freeway. lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | splashmtn wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | splashmtn wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | Self driving technology will be the biggest disruptor since the internet. A lot of people will be out of a job if and when it gets perfected. |
LINK
Remember when you could dial 411 and get a live operator? Our species is becoming dependent on mechanism. How many phone numbers do you have committed to memory or in an old fashion little black book?
I'm a victim of technology dependency in many cases.
If I lost or damaged my phone I'd be up ish creek if I didn't have a backup. I now have all numbers stored on a computer. I also have a printed list I keep in my personal hard files.
How many in the forum have one of these?
I'm all for technology but have angst about becoming to dependent. Sometimes taking the easy way out is not the best way out. LINK |
its not about taking the easy way out. It's utilizing these things as they are meant to be used. to ASSIST.
If you were a billionaire CEO. you personally would never have to memorize all of your clients phone numbers/ contact info. You would have an assistant for that.
This is what tech is to us regulars. We now have the ability to be ceo of our own stuff. Therefore you can utilize an assistant(s) to make you work smarter, not harder.
If I no longer have to use up memory power to hold a bunch of contact info. What else could I be doing with that brain power?
See some believe, if I dont go around memorizing everything like we had to in 1952, my mind will turn into mush. That could happen if you dont exercise your brain doing other activities now that it's freed up doing all of the memorization stuff.
You can now memorize concepts/processes vs all of the specific detail. the detail can be gathered from online sources within seconds much quicker than you ever could and you have access to more things that you could ever hold in your memory as well.
If my car is driving me around(i now have a driver just like a big time CEO). What else could I be doing before I get to my destination?(especially in L.A. traffic) I could be reading something, really paying attention to the scenery /taking it all in,working on some other tasks. |
You're over reacting. The gist is we're getting lazy. |
no, i'm saying You're overreacting. Unless you think CEO's of fortune 500 companies are all lazy. The same assistants they have had for decades the regular joes now have or will soon have that in electronics/computers. The question is how do you CHOOSE to use your assistants?
if i have a car driving me to work and to home every day of the week. I will actually crack open the laptop and get some work done. Now that aint everybody, but thats what I would do. So, am I lazy or am I using my new found assistant wisely? |
You're overreacting to the intent of my post that we're getting lazy. That's it. Businesses need technology.
Do we need cars that drive themselves? Do we need robotic butlers? Do we need vacuum cleaners that run themselves? Again, you're reading to much into my posts intent.
Hell, I'm offering an opinion. I think we getting lazy, that's an opinion, I own it. I may be the only one in the forum who eats rib eye steak with potato salad but that me. |
Do we need cars that drive themselves? YES, to help us stop killing one another, to help us stop running into one another and causing wasted money due to the damages done. To have our Time back if you have long distance(or long in time) commutes. You can work while you're no longer driving, you can read, you can get another 45 mins of Sleep.
Do we need robotic butlers? No
Do we need vacuum cleaners that run themselves? No...Unless you think about the people who never or rarely run their normal vacuum now. If they had a robo-vac and it cleaned up a couple of times a week. That would be great for having a cleaning place, probably help with the persons allergies and what not because on their own, they would never do the task.
Jo, I'm just saying all of these things are not making us lazy. Those of us who are lazy will always find away to be lazy regardless of the terminator's take over. But there are a lot of us who will utilize this tech appropriately to assist. Thats all I'm saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3984
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah we got to save our precious brain power for important stuff like debating if Lonzos horrific shooting percentage is physical or mental, Call of Duty, or internet Porn.
Edit- Hahaha my phone auto corrected porn into Porn because I actually know someone named Porn. (More than one actually) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | I do have to agree with splashmtn on that degree....people don't memorize stuff like phone numbers because they don't need to do that anymore. Also we have much more ways to get a hold of somebody other than using the phone....whether it be social media, texting, etc there are more methods of communicating with another person than 10-20 years ago. That being said, I disagree that people are getting lazy....they are just utilizing their brainpower for something else....for example, kids these days know how to code even in grade school...that is something that wasn't even done in previous generations. What we have now are people that are much more computer literate than the generations of students before them. |
I'd be lost without my computer. I'm not against technology. My rail is against things that make us lazy, auto vacuums, robotic butlers, cars that drive themselves. I don't know it I'd mow my lawn if I had to use a push mower though it would be great exercise. LINK |
just because you're use to something doesnt mean you're lazy if you no longer have to do it. lets stick to the thread. How is it, that not driving your car makes you lazy? Now not mowing your lawn, the vacuum.... I'm with you on those real manual tasks.
Driving isnt even good for your body if we're talking about L.A. level commutes. It's like driving trucks for a living. Bad for your back, bad for your knees, bad for your hips. depending on how you situate your right foot. You could have all sorts of issues. I know some people WANT to drive. but is it good for you? not really. Is it being lazy if you didnt? I dont think so.
Now having a bike with a motor could be seen as lazy if you're not commuting a very long distance. Because you're taking way a nice cardio workout. The only reason my heart rate increases when driving in Los Angeles is because some idiot just cut me off with no blinker, or I just got flashed for clearly signalling 2 mins straight to get over so I can get off the freeway. lol |
Do we “need” a car? Or are we lazy? I mean, you could walk. Or ride a horse. But maybe a horse is lazy?
I don’t think these issues are a function of laziness more than it is a function of companies rushing to be the first to roll out a MVP before it is fully tested.
We wouldn’t be talking about this if it ddin’t fail after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 7922
Location: Lake Forest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
Turns out the bus is empty.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersken80 wrote: | | I do have to agree with splashmtn on that degree....people don't memorize stuff like phone numbers because they don't need to do that anymore. |
funny, I was telling someone recently, about 40 years old....and I still remember the phone number my family had until I was 8 years old, and the phone number that my family had until I was 16 years old, and the phone number we had when we moved to Florida (which is still my parents #).....this is when I got my first cell phone, and I cannot tell you one single landline number that I have had as an adult between then and now. Even now when I rarely give out my landline for some reason, sometimes I actually call my cell to just confirm it. If I got put in jail, and my parents were not home, I would be screwed unless I wanted my one call to be 1-877-kars-4-kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chronicle
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31935
Location: Manhattan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
How is this different from sitting in a taxi where some dude decides who dies
_________________
Kobe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chronicle wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
How is this different from sitting in a taxi where some dude decides who dies |
Well, there's a couple differences.
1) The taxi driver isn't going to be able to make the some predictive analysis because he/she won't have the same information available to an autonomous vehicle. For instance, he won't know the exact rate of speed and directionality of the other vehicle(s) whereas an autonomous vehicle, in theory, could. They also wouldn't be able to calculate an infinite number of scenarios like if I slam in to this car at this rate of speed then this will happen, etc. A human driver also wouldn't necessarily know for certain the number of occupants in each vehicle.
2) A human driver is going to make decisions based on self-preservation. Whereas, an autonomous vehicle could be programmed to make decisions based on the greater good.
So this could mean that it could decide, in a given scenario, that there are only two outcomes. Slam into a car of 2 passengers, killing them, or swerve off a cliff, killing itself (and you) but saving 2 people instead of 1.
Or we can take it a step further. Let's say the autonomous vehicle knows that the person in the other car has a significant net worth and donates thousands of dollars to charity each year. But you, you're just an everyman who does not have the means to do the same thing. It may decide, if someone has to perish, that the other person is better for the greater good and send you off the cliff instead.
So your example, they are the same in the sense that there is some other entity making the decision on your behalf, but the conclusions they draw, and how they arrive there, are markedly different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chronicle
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31935
Location: Manhattan
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Chronicle wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
How is this different from sitting in a taxi where some dude decides who dies |
Well, there's a couple differences.
1) The taxi driver isn't going to be able to make the some predictive analysis because he/she won't have the same information available to an autonomous vehicle. For instance, he won't know the exact rate of speed and directionality of the other vehicle(s) whereas an autonomous vehicle, in theory, could. They also wouldn't be able to calculate an infinite number of scenarios like if I slam in to this car at this rate of speed then this will happen, etc. A human driver also wouldn't necessarily know for certain the number of occupants in each vehicle.
2) A human driver is going to make decisions based on self-preservation. Whereas, an autonomous vehicle could be programmed to make decisions based on the greater good.
So this could mean that it could decide, in a given scenario, that there are only two outcomes. Slam into a car of 2 passengers, killing them, or swerve off a cliff, killing itself (and you) but saving 2 people instead of 1.
Or we can take it a step further. Let's say the autonomous vehicle knows that the person in the other car has a significant net worth and donates thousands of dollars to charity each year. But you, you're just an everyman who does not have the means to do the same thing. It may decide, if someone has to perish, that the other person is better for the greater good and send you off the cliff instead.
So your example, they are the same in the sense that there is some other entity making the decision on your behalf, but the conclusions they draw, and how they arrive there, are markedly different. |
Okay I get the idea but it is not realistic in the slightest. The AI is built around training an artificial neural network. This is how it gets experience. With some form of extremely specialized computer vision it processes some camera feed, feeds a subset of that to the neural network, and then has a bunch of options on how to steer the car or brake or whatever, choosing the one that has the highest chance of following the neural network model.
Recognizing net worth of a person or another vehicle and calculating it against whoever is in the AI's car is not going to be in this network. It would be a ridiculous waste of resources having to include that not only in the computer vision algorithm but also in the calculations/training of the neural network. Yes you could theoretically do that but it's not realistic at all
Maybe in a few decades the algorithms are efficient enough and the processing power is faster (though moore's law is slowing down significantly), but even then people have to decide to include something like that in their models, and other people would have to decide to use that model for their car's AI, etc. This will also most likely be regulated by the government.
_________________
Kobe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
I Robot ; SAVE THE CHILD
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chronicle wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Chronicle wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
How is this different from sitting in a taxi where some dude decides who dies |
Well, there's a couple differences.
1) The taxi driver isn't going to be able to make the some predictive analysis because he/she won't have the same information available to an autonomous vehicle. For instance, he won't know the exact rate of speed and directionality of the other vehicle(s) whereas an autonomous vehicle, in theory, could. They also wouldn't be able to calculate an infinite number of scenarios like if I slam in to this car at this rate of speed then this will happen, etc. A human driver also wouldn't necessarily know for certain the number of occupants in each vehicle.
2) A human driver is going to make decisions based on self-preservation. Whereas, an autonomous vehicle could be programmed to make decisions based on the greater good.
So this could mean that it could decide, in a given scenario, that there are only two outcomes. Slam into a car of 2 passengers, killing them, or swerve off a cliff, killing itself (and you) but saving 2 people instead of 1.
Or we can take it a step further. Let's say the autonomous vehicle knows that the person in the other car has a significant net worth and donates thousands of dollars to charity each year. But you, you're just an everyman who does not have the means to do the same thing. It may decide, if someone has to perish, that the other person is better for the greater good and send you off the cliff instead.
So your example, they are the same in the sense that there is some other entity making the decision on your behalf, but the conclusions they draw, and how they arrive there, are markedly different. |
Okay I get the idea but it is not realistic in the slightest. The AI is built around training an artificial neural network. This is how it gets experience. With some form of extremely specialized computer vision it processes some camera feed, feeds a subset of that to the neural network, and then has a bunch of options on how to steer the car or brake or whatever, choosing the one that has the highest chance of following the neural network model.
Recognizing net worth of a person or another vehicle and calculating it against whoever is in the AI's car is not going to be in this network. It would be a ridiculous waste of resources having to include that not only in the computer vision algorithm but also in the calculations/training of the neural network. Yes you could theoretically do that but it's not realistic at all
Maybe in a few decades the algorithms are efficient enough and the processing power is faster (though moore's law is slowing down significantly), but even then people have to decide to include something like that in their models, and other people would have to decide to use that model for their car's AI, etc. This will also most likely be regulated by the government. |
Right. It wouldn't be like that in the first phase of autonomous driving. And it wouldn't need a camera feed if all the cars are talking to each other and transmitting coordinates and other information like passenger details.
And the net worth was just an example of a concept of prioritization. It could be based on criminal history (criminals deprioritized relative to non-criminals). Could be based on age. Health. Any factors.
And no, please little or no governmental regulation. They ruin, or fail to deliver on, everything. Although I will grant you there will likely need to be some safety standards in place but their involvement needs to be limited as much as humanly possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | splashmtn wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | I do have to agree with splashmtn on that degree....people don't memorize stuff like phone numbers because they don't need to do that anymore. Also we have much more ways to get a hold of somebody other than using the phone....whether it be social media, texting, etc there are more methods of communicating with another person than 10-20 years ago. That being said, I disagree that people are getting lazy....they are just utilizing their brainpower for something else....for example, kids these days know how to code even in grade school...that is something that wasn't even done in previous generations. What we have now are people that are much more computer literate than the generations of students before them. |
I'd be lost without my computer. I'm not against technology. My rail is against things that make us lazy, auto vacuums, robotic butlers, cars that drive themselves. I don't know it I'd mow my lawn if I had to use a push mower though it would be great exercise. LINK |
just because you're use to something doesnt mean you're lazy if you no longer have to do it. lets stick to the thread. How is it, that not driving your car makes you lazy? Now not mowing your lawn, the vacuum.... I'm with you on those real manual tasks.
Driving isnt even good for your body if we're talking about L.A. level commutes. It's like driving trucks for a living. Bad for your back, bad for your knees, bad for your hips. depending on how you situate your right foot. You could have all sorts of issues. I know some people WANT to drive. but is it good for you? not really. Is it being lazy if you didnt? I dont think so.
Now having a bike with a motor could be seen as lazy if you're not commuting a very long distance. Because you're taking way a nice cardio workout. The only reason my heart rate increases when driving in Los Angeles is because some idiot just cut me off with no blinker, or I just got flashed for clearly signalling 2 mins straight to get over so I can get off the freeway. lol |
Do we “need” a car? Or are we lazy? I mean, you could walk. Or ride a horse. But maybe a horse is lazy?
I don’t think these issues are a function of laziness more than it is a function of companies rushing to be the first to roll out a MVP before it is fully tested.
We wouldn’t be talking about this if it ddin’t fail after all. |
it's not being rushed. It's being tested. Being tested = It will probably fail until you get it right. a lot of the testing is behind closed doors, then behind closed gates, then outside of those gates in close proximity to the building, then at some point you have to let her ride the bicycle up and down the street and as she grows you will have to let her ride around the corner. Thats tests for you. Something did fail or maybe not. If you saw that video which they released. The biker came out of the dark shadows of the night right into that lane. A person would driving would've ran the biker over too. it was too late. The only thing they wonder about is why the car didnt at the last moment hit the breaks(which would not have saved the person's life since they would've hit them approx at the same speed. The breaks would've hit then bam and ms of a moment later. But they are wondering once the person got into view why didnt the vehicle automatically stop/or try to stop. Something looks like it either failed on that front OR it actually didnt fail. It may not have wanted to smash on the breaks and possibly put the driver in more danger. who knows. This is another issue people have with the self-driving vehicles. What happens when it has to make a decision on who to save if that were to ever come up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
people make these decisions all the time based on whatever they believe is right and their reflexes or lack thereof. There is no difference.
AI wont MAKE the decision as if its some robot with no soul making the decision.
The decision tree was setup by humans with souls, hopefully compassion, science, data, etc. So if those people that gave the AI it's options gave those options based on saving people based on their age, then the bus will be saved and your old a... is a goner. lol. it is...what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakersRGolden wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
Turns out the bus is empty. |
well, you just received your wings and you're on the way to heaven. Good choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Chronicle wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
How is this different from sitting in a taxi where some dude decides who dies |
Well, there's a couple differences.
1) The taxi driver isn't going to be able to make the some predictive analysis because he/she won't have the same information available to an autonomous vehicle. For instance, he won't know the exact rate of speed and directionality of the other vehicle(s) whereas an autonomous vehicle, in theory, could. They also wouldn't be able to calculate an infinite number of scenarios like if I slam in to this car at this rate of speed then this will happen, etc. A human driver also wouldn't necessarily know for certain the number of occupants in each vehicle.
2) A human driver is going to make decisions based on self-preservation. Whereas, an autonomous vehicle could be programmed to make decisions based on the greater good.
So this could mean that it could decide, in a given scenario, that there are only two outcomes. Slam into a car of 2 passengers, killing them, or swerve off a cliff, killing itself (and you) but saving 2 people instead of 1.
Or we can take it a step further. Let's say the autonomous vehicle knows that the person in the other car has a significant net worth and donates thousands of dollars to charity each year. But you, you're just an everyman who does not have the means to do the same thing. It may decide, if someone has to perish, that the other person is better for the greater good and send you off the cliff instead.
So your example, they are the same in the sense that there is some other entity making the decision on your behalf, but the conclusions they draw, and how they arrive there, are markedly different. |
To the bolded. you dont know if thats the case or not. If someone has the time to react, they might just choose others over themselves. You never know whats on some other person's mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammett
Star Player
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 9380
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We are seeing blue collar jobs like cashier, fast food server, drivers, etc. being replaced by robots.
But what if we can make an AI that could be a medical doctor, a lawyer, a CEO? Once the white collar jobs are gone, are we screwed?
_________________
Lakers. Built different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
people make these decisions all the time based on whatever they believe is right and their reflexes or lack thereof. There is no difference.
AI wont MAKE the decision as if its some robot with no soul making the decision.
The decision tree was setup by humans with souls, hopefully compassion, science, data, etc. So if those people that gave the AI it's options gave those options based on saving people based on their age, then the bus will be saved and your old a... is a goner. lol. it is...what it is. |
At its highest level, yes, it is the same in that the decision making process flow might be the same.
But in application, the scenarios are markedly different due to the ability of the AI to compute significantly more scenarios and computations in a much shorter period of time than a human can. Humans are also subject to bias, as well as other physiological limitations such as fatigue or impairment.
The point is that the outcomes will be different when you make decisions PURELY on logic. For instance, if given a choice of saving yourself plus your own 2 kids or a car of 4 passengers, do you think most people will prioritize their children, or the greater good?
The AI is going to say, saving 4 people is better than 3, so save the 4. But if the 1 of the is yourself and the other 2 are your own kids, I'm pretty sure that driver will do whatever he/she can to prioritize themselves. Not saying that is wrong -- I think that's up for debate, just saying, that is what I would expect to occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Chronicle wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Btw, here is the interesting (and scary) thing about the future of autonomous driving: Decision Making.
If a car can compute, instantly and say via AI, that a fatal accident will happen, should it prioritize the life of its occupants or prioritize the fewest deaths? If you’re going to hit a school bus in a way that will kill all the kids onboard, but your car can conduct a maneuver that will save all the kids at your expense, it might end up doing just that.
In short, the car will decide who dies in a scenario where someone is going to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars-programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/ |
How is this different from sitting in a taxi where some dude decides who dies |
Well, there's a couple differences.
1) The taxi driver isn't going to be able to make the some predictive analysis because he/she won't have the same information available to an autonomous vehicle. For instance, he won't know the exact rate of speed and directionality of the other vehicle(s) whereas an autonomous vehicle, in theory, could. They also wouldn't be able to calculate an infinite number of scenarios like if I slam in to this car at this rate of speed then this will happen, etc. A human driver also wouldn't necessarily know for certain the number of occupants in each vehicle.
2) A human driver is going to make decisions based on self-preservation. Whereas, an autonomous vehicle could be programmed to make decisions based on the greater good.
So this could mean that it could decide, in a given scenario, that there are only two outcomes. Slam into a car of 2 passengers, killing them, or swerve off a cliff, killing itself (and you) but saving 2 people instead of 1.
Or we can take it a step further. Let's say the autonomous vehicle knows that the person in the other car has a significant net worth and donates thousands of dollars to charity each year. But you, you're just an everyman who does not have the means to do the same thing. It may decide, if someone has to perish, that the other person is better for the greater good and send you off the cliff instead.
So your example, they are the same in the sense that there is some other entity making the decision on your behalf, but the conclusions they draw, and how they arrive there, are markedly different. |
To the bolded. you dont know if thats the case or not. If someone has the time to react, they might just choose others over themselves. You never know whats on some other person's mind. |
You're right. You don't know. We're hypothesizing. And that's sort of the point. With AI, the "best" case scenario will always be followed whereas, with a human being you cannot, as you have astutely pointed out, be guaranteed will be the case.
I think we can at least agree that in the human driver scenario, at least some of the time, they will prioritize self-preservation over the greater good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25076
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/technology/his-2020-campaign-message-the-robots-are-coming.html
To fend off the coming robots, Mr. Yang is pushing what he calls a “Freedom Dividend,” a monthly check for $1,000 that would be sent to every American from age 18 to 64, regardless of income or employment status. These payments, he says, would bring everyone in America up to approximately the poverty line, even if they were directly hit by automation. Medicare and Medicaid would be unaffected under Mr. Yang’s plan, but people receiving government benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could choose to continue receiving those benefits, or take the $1,000 monthly payments instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hammett wrote: | We are seeing blue collar jobs like cashier, fast food server, drivers, etc. being replaced by robots.
But what if we can make an AI that could be a medical doctor, a lawyer, a CEO? Once the white collar jobs are gone, are we screwed? |
Ham, its over, its a wrap for all of us. The bad news is, you've seen the movie already. How many of these end times futuristic movies have we've seen, where the regulars are living super low lives. and the $$$ class is living beyond high on the hog.
The good news is, we could make the right choices that makes it a good thing even better than what our current lives were like before when we had to work to to pay for everything. Things could be different but it does not have to end up in a bad setup. we shall see what happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
