goblinbox

goblinbox t1_itq0z4n wrote

Reply to comment by jackpandanicholson in Lyft co-founder says autonomous vehicles won’t replace drivers for at least a decade by lughnasadh

yes, they're already on real roads, and they suck: they run over children, and are confused when there's a street sign in an unexpected location, but you want my qualifications?

we don't have AI capable of safely driving cars on real roads in real world conditions, and probably won't in our lifetimes, if, indeed, ever

it's a fascinating discipline to study, sure, but we don't need self-driving cars, and I don't agree that 'some deaths' are worth training AI on real roads, just so the results can eventually be applied to some other application.

training AI on real streets should be illegal. software is stupid, and nowhere near the human brain in terms of assessing and reacting to unexpected situations, in 3D, at speed, in a rolling potential bomb, surrounded by soft, unprotected human bodies.

−1

goblinbox t1_itpx30v wrote

Reply to comment by jackpandanicholson in Lyft co-founder says autonomous vehicles won’t replace drivers for at least a decade by lughnasadh

You believe we can write software that can respond to the world in real time and make good decisions. Or that we can make it train itself.

Well, I don't. It'll take actual AI, which doesn't exist, and probably won't.

Effective robots work in highly constrained environments.

There's no way to build a robot that can drive on real roads in the real world with all the unpredictability that entails.

Software is stupid. Self-driving cars solve no extant problems and introduce new, avoidable ones.

Keep working on AI, sure, but not on public roads.

0

goblinbox t1_itpvvfv wrote

Reply to comment by LinasThighsMatter in Lyft co-founder says autonomous vehicles won’t replace drivers for at least a decade by lughnasadh

The fact that humans make mistakes doesn't mean that self-driving cars, which make more mistakes, are the solution.

They're objectively dangerous and, if the goal is, in fact, safer transportation and the protection of human life, they should be abandoned for a better solution.

(I doubt that saving human lives is the goal, though. It's more likely justification for a dangerous, expensive toy you want because you think it's a neat idea.)

0

goblinbox t1_itpsqfm wrote

Reply to comment by jackpandanicholson in Lyft co-founder says autonomous vehicles won’t replace drivers for at least a decade by lughnasadh

Self-driving cars are a crap product. They blow up. They brick. They lock people inside. They run over children. They can't understand common items in road environments, and probably never will. They're ugly. They're expensive.

They solve no actual problem; there's no shortage of safer transportation solutions or even qualified drivers. What's the point of a solution without a problem, especially when it's a bad, expensive solution that kills people?

Some people seem rabidly defensive of them anyway, but adoring an idea doesn't make it a good one.

−6