| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Automation Bomb | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 12 2016, 09:10 AM (1,664 Views) | |
| Klaus | Aug 15 2016, 03:08 PM Post #101 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Let me save your sentence here such that we can revisit in ten years or so
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Aug 15 2016, 03:42 PM Post #102 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Happy to change my stance in the face of evidence - but while we're all speaking hypothetically, as a hacker and tinkerer I stand by it. Before you throw it in my face (in 10 years), let's first define "widespread." |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Rainman | Aug 15 2016, 03:44 PM Post #103 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I don't get it. In the wonderful future, I'm suppose to get all excited to buy a BMW or Porsche, and then have the machine drive me around? Or, do I get a "non-conformist" button, where I can take over control manually, then have fun weaving in and out of traffic watching all the other cars freak out trying to avoid crashing into each other? On Friday evenings, I go out with my friends and toss toy dolls and stuffed puppies on the freeway, just to see what happens? How about driverless boats or hey, driverless motorcycles and jet skis? No one need be killed or injured in this wonderful future, except lots of self motivated skill and thrill seekers would die from boredom. No, really. It's all a great idea because. . . because. . . it's possible. Maybe people could just learn to drive. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Aug 15 2016, 03:46 PM Post #104 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Klaus: Let's look at it maybe another way - why is it that there isn't very widespread hacking of current ECUs in cars? Just about any new-ish Audi, VW, or BMW off the lot can gain 95-98 horsepower from flashing the ECU. Many folks do it, sure, but it isn't widespread - why? The engine is still well within compression and performance guidelines, so it isn't fear of blowing the thing up. And most would certainly pay $400-$500 for a performance upgrade that yields 30% increases, so why don't more folks do it? |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Aug 15 2016, 03:49 PM Post #105 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I imagine "toll roads" where "analog" vehicles can drive, and I envision more tracks for sport-driving. This is preferable actually, for those of us who really like to hit it hard, as we wont' be dealing with potholes and off-camber turns. I might love having the Duc nearly on its side on a Saturday afternoon in the mountains, but then there's always some asshole driving 15mph below the speed limit or a patch of gravel that gives me a chance to test out the ABS and traction control. I'd prefer to have a sport-area to ride/drive aggressively without those concerns - maybe in our autonomous future, the enthusiasts will flock to such areas.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Aug 15 2016, 11:39 PM Post #106 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Because having a few horsepower more is not a "game changer". Also, fear of damaging the car - for instance, the break system may not be able to deal with the stronger forces in the long term. Then there are also issues with the warranty. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Aug 16 2016, 06:16 AM Post #107 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
100 hp is not a "few," and most ECU flashing is reversible to avoid warranty nullification. Many cars at this level ship with great brakes, many even shipping with Brembo packages. But I agree - potential warranty nullification is a big reason people don't do it. It's also a reason I pointed at earlier that I don't think people would quickly flash an autonomous car. ![]() Edited by KlavierBauer, Aug 16 2016, 06:17 AM.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 16 2016, 06:27 AM Post #108 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
+1 My view is totally divorcing humankind from any need to strive for our own survival is a big step toward our extinction. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Aug 16 2016, 06:33 AM Post #109 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Cold Mountain. Ruby illustrates this rather perfectly, in my opinion. When things go tits up, a certain kind of intelligence wins out, every time. Rely on your phone to get around? Well now you're beholden to your phone's software, its battery and the cell towers to get to where you need to go. Compare that to someone who just knows his neighborhood. Take your bike into the shop to get it fixed? It takes days to get it back, not hours, you pay so much more money for it and they won't ever do as good a job as you would. You pay more for shoddier work that takes longer. Get lost hiking? You're dead if you don't know where to find water and how to clean it. On and on. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Catseye | Aug 16 2016, 06:42 AM Post #110 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Rainman, if you haven't already read it, see if you can get hold of Stephen King's first short story collection, Night Shift. There's a story in there, "Trucks", that I think you would appreciate.
|
| "How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 16 2016, 07:04 AM Post #111 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
The meek will not inherit the earth. Jolly will. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Aug 16 2016, 07:29 AM Post #112 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Phooey! It's true that as we embrace technology we lose specific skillsets and we become reliant on that technology such that if it were suddenly taken away we would be screwed. Those are your downsides, loss of skill and a kind of technological fragility. The upsides are essentially that some component of our life is enhanced, i.e. it costs us less time/effort to achieve an equal to or greater outcome. But this trade off has been true from the beginning of humanity, if you develop spears then the skill and understanding of how to hand wrestle a wild boar becomes somewhat unnecessary and over time those skills and knowledge are lost. If the fancy neolithic hunters with their high-tech spears had their technology stripped from them then they would be screwed in comparison to their pre-neolithic forebears with their superior boar-wrestling skills. Every technological step makes some set of skills less relevant whilst opening the door to development of new skillsets. You're right people are beholden to modern technology. But it's always been true. As soon we developed fire we became reliant on fire, same for clothes, and knives, and electricity, and everything we develop that carries with it some advantage over the status quo. I dispute that there's any real loss going on here. All that's really happening is change. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Aug 16 2016, 07:34 AM Post #113 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Plenty of elderly people cease being able to drive because of eyesight or resting tremors and it has a negative impact on their quality of life. For the youth going for night out will easier and safer with convenient risk free transport available to anyone. Automated cars can in principle travel both more efficiently and more quickly in densely populated areas, saving money, time and the environment. It's a great idea because it's useful. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Aug 16 2016, 07:45 AM Post #114 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I agree with KB. I think you're thinking about this the wrong way. Like it's just another piece of complex software. But it won't be just another piece of complex software, it will be the most dangerous piece of software anyone owns. It will control machines that can easily kill people if the software is not correctly configured. If your phone is hacked you can perhaps lose some money, if your car is hacked you and/or other people can die. The first time someone's hacked car crashes and kills them and or others, there will be a massive outcry and the government will demand all automatic driving software be installed by certified garages. They will demand all software cars be completely air gapped (i.e. not allowed to connect to the internet), and instigate massive fines/driving bans/jail sentences for anyone found tampering with their machines. Even with that, I'm sure there will be people who hack them, but mainstream? I don't see that happening. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Aug 16 2016, 08:01 AM Post #115 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
But the aspect where you are thinking about this the wrong way is this: There are many pieces of software that are very critical. The software that controls a nuclear power plant, or a medical life support machine. However, these pieces of software are tiny compared to the software required for self driving. It's like a 10 line program compared to the entire Windows operating system. If you design the software for a nuclear power plant, you can get it mostly correct, with a lot of testing, formal verification, n-way computation, and so forth. But there is no way in the world how you can get the software for a self driving car correct. No matter how careful you are, there will be thousands and thousands of bugs in it, and those bugs will only be discovered one by one while the program is operational. That's why the common approach to build safety-critical software is simply not applicable to self driving cars, and you need a quality assurance strategy similar to other huge software ecosystems, like Android or Linux. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Aug 16 2016, 08:02 AM Post #116 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I believe there is some archeological evidence that species with big brains have a shorter expected life span than simple animals that can reproduce rapidly etc. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Aug 16 2016, 08:29 AM Post #117 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I've saved thousands of dollars by working on my bike myself. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Aug 16 2016, 08:31 AM Post #118 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I'm not so sure that's true - programs that rely on learning algorithms aren't that large. Alpha Go isn't a complicated program with vast opportunity for hard to find bugs, 'bugs' are just inaccuracies of play and 'fixing them' comes from tweaking the architecture and coming with up ever more refined training data. The algorithmic part of a self driving car will be much more like alpha go than linux. Granted more complicated than alpha go but you'd imagine (and maybe I'm hopelessly off base) that the main guts of it would still be relatively simple nothing like the complexity of an operating system. Actually rather counter-intuitively the current size of car software (in terms of lines of code) is enormous, much larger than linux or Android. AFAIK that's all closed source and has been developed without the ecosystem approach you mention. I'm genuinely curious to know whether or not the software that controls a nuclear power plant is less complicated (in terms of lines of code) than a self driving car. If I had to bet I would bet it's more complicated because it's normal software not ML software. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Aug 16 2016, 11:05 AM Post #119 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Klaus: You may be right with regards to bug-count and that they will be discovered one by one. But I think we have to compare this to what it's replacing - the human driver. No matter how you slice it, the "bug count" will be significantly lower, and thereby safer, on balance. This pops up in video game development all the time. No game ships with all of the bugs worked out, and as games get more complicated, the static process of QA and unit testing simply aren't adequate. Recently I'm engrossed in a new game called "No Man's Sky" - it's a procedurally generated sandbox game, with over 18 quintillion planets in its game-universe. The odds of two players even finding one another is incredibly remote. All flora, fauna, and animal life on each planet is also procedurally generated, such that the devs don't even have an inventory of creature in the game (indeed, part of the game's objective-set is indexing and uploading the geological and biological diversity you come across as you explore). The number of bugs in this game will be immense, because the game is building itself as it goes - but still, it is very playable right "our of the box" because the rules that govern the game are fairly well known, and most use-cases have been accounted for. I think it will be much the same as we program more and more intelligent interfaces. The old days of testing specific use-cases will cease to be the main objective of QA, and other learning-programs will learn how to test various outcomes without humans needing to think up every use-case. Yes - an autonomous vehicle will have many, many bugs - but it will still be fewer bugs than the best driver in most cases, and that list of bugs will be an ever-shrinking sub-set of potential outcomes. Edited by KlavierBauer, Aug 16 2016, 11:06 AM.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| John Galt | Aug 16 2016, 12:03 PM Post #120 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Ford developing fully autonomous vehicle for ride-sharing. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-16/ford-aims-to-offer-fully-autonomous-ride-sharing-vehicle-by-2021 |
| Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness. | |
![]() |
|
| taiwan_girl | Aug 16 2016, 12:19 PM Post #121 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I always thought that one of the big customers for self driving cars (other than elder people, which was mentioned above) would be container trucks to move goods across countries. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Aug 16 2016, 12:52 PM Post #122 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
taiwan_girl: I think you're right. That's part of the reason this will be a big deal here in the U.S. - our truck driving industry literally drives our economy. We're so far spread apart compared to other populated parts of the world, that our interstate system and trucking industry have become an integral part of our daily lives. There would be a lot of pluses and negatives to such a change in our trucking industry, but I think all in all it will be a good thing. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Rainman | Aug 16 2016, 01:03 PM Post #123 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
KlavierBauer, perhaps along the way we might be able to improve and expand rail service as well, and work towards better integration of shipping/rail/trucks for long-range transport. Before introducing driverless cars, I'd be most happy if they would repave my street first. I'll give it time though, for that to ever happen. Lots and lots and lots of time. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Aug 16 2016, 01:30 PM Post #124 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Indeed there are lots of infrastructure problems that should take priority over "driverless car." But the profit motive is not there for many of the infrastructure problems. E.g., no one gets rich improving water supply lines or sewer systems or paving public roads for the masses. So those don't get done without government action. This is a big problem with the argument that says that government should somehow be run like a business and make a profit. There are many unprofitable things that no profit-seeking business wants to do, and those are the slacks that governments need to pick up or the citizenry suffers. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Aug 16 2016, 01:33 PM Post #125 |
|
Cheers
|
Yep, you saved me from writing this exact post. We notice recent technology and consider it 'unnatural' in some vague sense, while older technologies that had just as big an impact on human development - even human evolution- are seen as natural because we're so accustomed to them. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










4:46 PM Jul 10