menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
Page: 7 of 12
mail
person
Ohio69
1/19/2017 12:27 PM
OUs LONG Driver wrote:expand_more
There's no way a human could have done that.
Gotta avoid these types of declarations if you want to convince people. Sounds like blind faith. I'm sure many humans have anticipated a crash of other cars and acted correctly, as I have. (Then again, maybe just say its gonna be "great" and a "(h)uge success" and "trust me I'm really smart" and you'll get what you want, even the presidency... but I digress...)

Well, the math (accidents/deaths) and money (savings from killing off jobs, and insurance company $) will likely make this inevitable. I will grumble nonetheless.
Last Edited: 1/19/2017 12:28:47 PM by Ohio69
mail
person
OUPride
1/19/2017 12:44 PM
FWIW, Ohio has entered into a collaboration with Michigan and Pennsylvania for the development and production of self-driving cars.

http://www.govtech.com/fs/transportation/3-States-form-Sm...
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/19/2017 12:52 PM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
FWIW, Ohio has entered into a collaboration with Michigan and Pennsylvania for the development and production of self-driving cars.

http://www.govtech.com/fs/transportation/3-States-form-Sm...
If only Maleek Irons . . .

( too soon ? )
mail
OhioCatFan
1/19/2017 1:17 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
rp, this is exactly why I don't want computers making that kind of decision. There are often more than two alternatives in such situations, and the damn machine will not understand such subtleties. For instance, you may have the choice of not running into the crowd directly but only on the edges and therefore potentially taking out only one or two folks on the edge of the crowd and saving the five in the car, with hopes that the two you hit are only glancing blows and not fatal ones with adroit maneuvering. The other option would be five dead in the car with a head-on collision with a semi. I'd much rather have people making these kinds of decision not some robot.
Just curious but does your VCR still flash 12:00?????


As usual you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I was doing computer programming probably before you were born, or maybe when you were still in diapers or a snot-nosed grade school pupil.
mail
DelBobcat
1/19/2017 1:20 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
rp, this is exactly why I don't want computers making that kind of decision. There are often more than two alternatives in such situations, and the damn machine will not understand such subtleties. For instance, you may have the choice of not running into the crowd directly but only on the edges and therefore potentially taking out only one or two folks on the edge of the crowd and saving the five in the car, with hopes that the two you hit are only glancing blows and not fatal ones with adroit maneuvering. The other option would be five dead in the car with a head-on collision with a semi. I'd much rather have people making these kinds of decision not some robot.
The limitation of having only two alternatives actually came from the MIT researchers mind, not any real scenario. Why do you believe that the computer would be unable to understand the subtleties? Computers aren't binary, they are capable of making many more calculations per second than any human could even come close to. There's no reason that a computer couldn't almost instantaneously figure out the exact correct course of action to minimize lives lost. People, on the other hand, often make the wrong choice in these types of situations.
Last Edited: 1/19/2017 1:20:56 PM by DelBobcat
mail
OhioCatFan
1/19/2017 1:24 PM
OUs LONG Driver wrote:expand_more
I agree the life & death situation is something that will be difficult to sort out, however, I think it would be hard to argue that replacing the error prone human may prevent these very scenarios from even happening. . . .
This is an excellent point. My new RAV/4 Hybrid has a lot of very neat safety features -- telling you when someone is in your side-view mirror blind spot, when it's safe to pull back into the right lane after passing another vehicle, and it will automatically break your car if your attention is diverted and the car in front of you makes a sudden stop. I hope to never have to use that last feature, but it's a nice one to have just in case. In all of these instances, though, a human driver is still in the driver's seat. I'm all for computer-assisted driving, I'm just dubious about computer driving.
mail
OhioCatFan
1/19/2017 1:32 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Why do you believe that the computer would be unable to understand the subtleties? Computers aren't binary, they are capable of making many more calculations per second than any human could even come close to. [/QUOTE]

This is simply not true, in any meaningful way. Here's a quick summary from an interesting article on the subject:

"Biology is a beautiful thing, and life itself is much smarter than computers. For example, the brain is both hardware and software, whereas there is an inherent different in computers. The same interconnected areas, linked by billions of neurons and perhaps trillions of glial cells, can perceive, interpret, store, analyze, and redistribute at the same time. Computers, by their very definition and fundamental design, have some parts for processing and others for memory; the brain doesn’t make that separation, which makes it hugely efficient."

Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/h3d2f9s

[QUOTE=DelBobcat] There's no reason that a computer couldn't almost instantaneously figure out the exact correct course of action to minimize lives lost. People, on the other hand, often make the wrong choice in these types of situations.
You may trust it, I don't. This an article of faith with you. There's no scientific evidence that the computer would be better than a human at this. Every artificial intelligence program I've seen to date definitely places the emphasis on the word artificial and not intelligence.
mail
person
oldkatz
1/19/2017 1:58 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
FWIW, Ohio has entered into a collaboration with Michigan and Pennsylvania for the development and production of self-driving cars.

http://www.govtech.com/fs/transportation/3-States-form-Sm...
If only Maleek Irons . . .

( too soon ? )
Hoo hah!!!
mail
person
OUs LONG Driver
1/19/2017 2:03 PM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
There's no way a human could have done that.
Gotta avoid these types of declarations if you want to convince people. Sounds like blind faith. I'm sure many humans have anticipated a crash of other cars and acted correctly, as I have. (Then again, maybe just say its gonna be "great" and a "(h)uge success" and "trust me I'm really smart" and you'll get what you want, even the presidency... but I digress...)

Well, the math (accidents/deaths) and money (savings from killing off jobs, and insurance company $) will likely make this inevitable. I will grumble nonetheless.
I should have probably provided more detail on the collision to qualify my statement. Essentially the driver of the Tesla would have been blinded by the car in front of it from being able to see the other car slow down, therefore unable to react until the car in front of it reacted. If our vision is blocked we don't have any secondary means to detect an oncoming problem but the tech in Tesla does. I don't know the specifics of the sensors used but I know it's discussed as being able to see 2 cars ahead so it can see through the first car or obstacle. We can't do that, hence my statement.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. As you stated this is seemingly inevitable, I happen to think it's a net positive and was surprised at some of the ability already out there.
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/19/2017 2:53 PM
OUs LONG Driver wrote:expand_more
I should have probably provided more detail on the collision to qualify my statement. Essentially the driver of the Tesla would have been blinded by the car in front of it from being able to see the other car slow down, therefore unable to react until the car in front of it reacted. If our vision is blocked we don't have any secondary means to detect an oncoming problem but the tech in Tesla does. I don't know the specifics of the sensors used but I know it's discussed as being able to see 2 cars ahead so it can see through the first car or obstacle. We can't do that, hence my statement.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. As you stated this is seemingly inevitable, I happen to think it's a net positive and was surprised at some of the ability already out there.
The issue of "vision" brings up an interesting point.

I watching a show about driverless vehicles a few weeks ago.

One of the things that the people said they still haven't been able to work out,is how to keep sensors,cameras etc.functioning under less then ideal conditions including during snow,dust or when they just get dirty.

They have the same problem,to a lesser degree,with solar panels.
Solar panels just lose efficiency.Even with redundancy,if sensors and cameras can't function, the system goes down.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
1/20/2017 5:25 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I agree the life & death situation is something that will be difficult to sort out, however, I think it would be hard to argue that replacing the error prone human may prevent these very scenarios from even happening. . . .
...and it will automatically break your car if your attention is diverted and the car in front of you makes a sudden stop
That seems a little drastic!
mail
OhioCatFan
1/20/2017 9:11 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I agree the life & death situation is something that will be difficult to sort out, however, I think it would be hard to argue that replacing the error prone human may prevent these very scenarios from even happening. . . .
...and it will automatically break your car if your attention is diverted and the car in front of you makes a sudden stop
That seems a little drastic!


Remember my undergraduate major at OHIO was broadcast journalism. Please read everything I write phonetically. ;-) Put it this way, if it didn't brake your car, you -- and maybe you and your passengers -- would be broke (in maybe more ways then one).
mail
person
MedinaCat
3/3/2017 11:21 AM
A penguin chimes in...

http://businessjournaldaily.com/thought-leaders-jim-cossl... /
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/17/2017 6:40 AM
There was a segment on one of the radio talk shows yesterday about a you-tube video of a "bucket truck" driving down the highway,with its boom/bucket fully extended.

Apparently this isn't uncommon,especially with mobile t.v. or radio vans.

Would seem to me,with all the technology out there,they would have some type of ignition/transmission lock to prevent moving a vehicle with the boom extended.
mail
The Optimist
4/26/2017 12:11 PM
Google's opened up it's driverless ride-sharing for testing by the public in Phoenix. They had an order for 100 minivans from Chrysler they are converting to driverless. They just bumped that order up to 600.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-25/alphab...
mail
DelBobcat
4/26/2017 5:20 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Why do you believe that the computer would be unable to understand the subtleties? Computers aren't binary, they are capable of making many more calculations per second than any human could even come close to.


This is simply not true, in any meaningful way. Here's a quick summary from an interesting article on the subject:

"Biology is a beautiful thing, and life itself is much smarter than computers. For example, the brain is both hardware and software, whereas there is an inherent different in computers. The same interconnected areas, linked by billions of neurons and perhaps trillions of glial cells, can perceive, interpret, store, analyze, and redistribute at the same time. Computers, by their very definition and fundamental design, have some parts for processing and others for memory; the brain doesn’t make that separation, which makes it hugely efficient."

Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/h3d2f9s

There's no reason that a computer couldn't almost instantaneously figure out the exact correct course of action to minimize lives lost. People, on the other hand, often make the wrong choice in these types of situations.
You may trust it, I don't. This an article of faith with you. There's no scientific evidence that the computer would be better than a human at this. Every artificial intelligence program I've seen to date definitely places the emphasis on the word artificial and not intelligence.
The article you linked does not at all prove my point wrong. We're not talking about designing a computer that can do all the things a brain does as efficiently as the brain does it. We're talking about designing a computer that only has to do one task--drive safely. You can teach a computer many, many combinations of possible outcomes and it can recall them quickly to accomplish that task. Quicker than humans because the human brain is also doing many other things at the same time.

But that point doesn't even matter, because the important point is your second one. That somehow my trust in the computer to make the right choice is based on blind faith. That's not true at all. I'm basing my opinion on the overwhelming agreement of research in this field. If the research said the opposite (or a different finding comes about in the future with a larger sample size) I would change my mind on this issue. You see, my initial reaction to the thought of allowing a computer to do the driving was the same as yours--an emotional one. I was convinced that I could do better than a computer and I did not like the idea of giving up my control. But the evidence says I was wrong and I've changed my opinion on the matter accordingly.
mail
OhioCatFan
4/27/2017 12:14 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Why do you believe that the computer would be unable to understand the subtleties? Computers aren't binary, they are capable of making many more calculations per second than any human could even come close to.


This is simply not true, in any meaningful way. Here's a quick summary from an interesting article on the subject:

"Biology is a beautiful thing, and life itself is much smarter than computers. For example, the brain is both hardware and software, whereas there is an inherent different in computers. The same interconnected areas, linked by billions of neurons and perhaps trillions of glial cells, can perceive, interpret, store, analyze, and redistribute at the same time. Computers, by their very definition and fundamental design, have some parts for processing and others for memory; the brain doesn’t make that separation, which makes it hugely efficient."

Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/h3d2f9s

There's no reason that a computer couldn't almost instantaneously figure out the exact correct course of action to minimize lives lost. People, on the other hand, often make the wrong choice in these types of situations.
You may trust it, I don't. This an article of faith with you. There's no scientific evidence that the computer would be better than a human at this. Every artificial intelligence program I've seen to date definitely places the emphasis on the word artificial and not intelligence.
The article you linked does not at all prove my point wrong. We're not talking about designing a computer that can do all the things a brain does as efficiently as the brain does it. We're talking about designing a computer that only has to do one task--drive safely. You can teach a computer many, many combinations of possible outcomes and it can recall them quickly to accomplish that task. Quicker than humans because the human brain is also doing many other things at the same time.

But that point doesn't even matter, because the important point is your second one. That somehow my trust in the computer to make the right choice is based on blind faith. That's not true at all. I'm basing my opinion on the overwhelming agreement of research in this field. If the research said the opposite (or a different finding comes about in the future with a larger sample size) I would change my mind on this issue. You see, my initial reaction to the thought of allowing a computer to do the driving was the same as yours--an emotional one. I was convinced that I could do better than a computer and I did not like the idea of giving up my control. But the evidence says I was wrong and I've changed my opinion on the matter accordingly.
Two quick points before I hit the sack: 1. researchers in this field are not inherently objective. I've been hearing overblown claims about AI for more than 30 years. These claims were always made by folks with great research pedigrees. We'll see if this new wave of research claims is better than those of former years. That's certainly possible, but I remain a skeptic until we have a lot more data and experience than we have now. 2. I recently bought a new RAV/4 that has all kinds of computer-assisted safety features. For instance: it tells me if a car is in my blind spot; it beeps if I change lanes without putting my blinker on; and it will also brake if I'm distracted and the car in front of me unexpectedly slows down too rapidly -- thus preventing a rear end collision. To my way of thinking, this is the ideal combination of human action and computer technology. I like computer-assisted vehicles. I'm still leery of computer driven on-road vehicles. Computer driven trains, I think, would be more reliable, because there are less variables to deal with.
Last Edited: 4/27/2017 12:16:33 AM by OhioCatFan
mail
Andrew Ruck
5/23/2017 1:04 PM
I'm happy to see this discussion raged on for several more pages since I last checked in, and am proud to have played my part in stirring it up in the first place.

Saw the firing of the Ford CEO and their reasoning and had to find this thread. Despite strong profits, they didn't want a leader who was anchored to the old way of doing things, so they promoted the guy who was in charge of, you guessed it, the development of their driverless technology.

Get on board guys, it is coming hard and fast.
mail
The Optimist
5/23/2017 1:40 PM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
I'm happy to see this discussion raged on for several more pages since I last checked in, and am proud to have played my part in stirring it up in the first place.

Saw the firing of the Ford CEO and their reasoning and had to find this thread. Despite strong profits, they didn't want a leader who was anchored to the old way of doing things, so they promoted the guy who was in charge of, you guessed it, the development of their driverless technology. [/QUOTE]It is amazing how quickly this has ramped up. 5 years ago, driverless was primarily focused in the Silicon Valley with a couple automakers dabbling...

Now, EVERY major auto-manufacturer has detailed plans for driverless.


[QUOTE]Get on board guys, it is coming hard and fast.
Last Edited: 5/23/2017 1:40:55 PM by The Optimist
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/23/2017 1:49 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
I'm happy to see this discussion raged on for several more pages since I last checked in, and am proud to have played my part in stirring it up in the first place.

Saw the firing of the Ford CEO and their reasoning and had to find this thread. Despite strong profits, they didn't want a leader who was anchored to the old way of doing things, so they promoted the guy who was in charge of, you guessed it, the development of their driverless technology.
It is amazing how quickly this has ramped up. 5 years ago, driverless was primarily focused in the Silicon Valley with a couple automakers dabbling...

Now, EVERY major auto-manufacturer has detailed plans for driverless.


Get on board guys, it is coming hard and fast.
Said before and I'll say it again.
They can have my steering wheel when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
mail
person
cbus cat fan
5/23/2017 10:03 PM
I hear ya rpbobcat. I certainly understand driver less cars for the handicapped, vision-impaired etc. However, not wanting to drive when you are alone in the car is beyond my level of comprehension. We are either heading toward the non-fiction lyrics of Red Barchetta, or entering some sort of bored to tears existence. Either way it is a sci-fi way of life, I would rather not experience.
Last Edited: 5/23/2017 10:06:44 PM by cbus cat fan
mail
person
mid70sbobcat
5/23/2017 11:24 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
I'm happy to see this discussion raged on for several more pages since I last checked in, and am proud to have played my part in stirring it up in the first place.

Saw the firing of the Ford CEO and their reasoning and had to find this thread. Despite strong profits, they didn't want a leader who was anchored to the old way of doing things, so they promoted the guy who was in charge of, you guessed it, the development of their driverless technology.
It is amazing how quickly this has ramped up. 5 years ago, driverless was primarily focused in the Silicon Valley with a couple automakers dabbling...

Now, EVERY major auto-manufacturer has detailed plans for driverless.


Get on board guys, it is coming hard and fast.
Said before and I'll say it again.
They can have my steering wheel when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
Agreed. Having worked in Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems there are a number of areas driverless cars are a crap shoot at best. And thus, lawsuits would be all over the place. Multiple driverless cars, on the same road, whether a highway or 2 lane road, would have issues with things like black ice, rain freezing (to ice). Multiple cars cannot know how the other will respond, thus if any car in a situation chooses a decision that conflicts with another car it's an accident waiting to happen. I will never in my lifetime be a passenger in a driverless car.
mail
Andrew Ruck
5/23/2017 11:36 PM
mid70sbobcat wrote:expand_more
Agreed. Having worked in Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems there are a number of areas driverless cars are a crap shoot at best. And thus, lawsuits would be all over the place. Multiple driverless cars, on the same road, whether a highway or 2 lane road, would have issues with things like black ice, rain freezing (to ice). Multiple cars cannot know how the other will respond, thus if any car in a situation chooses a decision that conflicts with another car it's an accident waiting to happen. I will never in my lifetime be a passenger in a driverless car.
Ugh...I shouldn't have brought this back up, you're luring me in again. Your belief that multiple driverless cars can't work together while completely independent humans can is hard to wrap my mind around.

Also not being able to understand why you wouldn't want to drive the car...really? How bout sleeping, reading, watching a movie or many other completely free relaxing recreational activities? I would LOVE to turn my commute into 45 minutes of freedom.
mail
person
mid70sbobcat
5/24/2017 7:23 AM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
Agreed. Having worked in Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems there are a number of areas driverless cars are a crap shoot at best. And thus, lawsuits would be all over the place. Multiple driverless cars, on the same road, whether a highway or 2 lane road, would have issues with things like black ice, rain freezing (to ice). Multiple cars cannot know how the other will respond, thus if any car in a situation chooses a decision that conflicts with another car it's an accident waiting to happen. I will never in my lifetime be a passenger in a driverless car.
Ugh...I shouldn't have brought this back up, you're luring me in again. Your belief that multiple driverless cars can't work together while completely independent humans can is hard to wrap my mind around.

Also not being able to understand why you wouldn't want to drive the car...really? How bout sleeping, reading, watching a movie or many other completely free relaxing recreational activities? I would LOVE to turn my commute into 45 minutes of freedom.
For each it would/will be a choice. I prefer to have some control over a situation where I can make decisions that may help with my safety and well being and not be at the mercy of an external decision making entity.

I may not know everything about AI but was involved in it for years. There are, and will continue to be some situations where a smart system cannot make an optimal decision due to the many other variables and data (other cars) that can impact the decision made by each individual car. And that exists today with humans driving cars. But I can make my own decision now and will do so in the future.
mail
The Optimist
5/24/2017 8:43 AM
mid70sbobcat wrote:expand_more
Agreed. Having worked in Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems there are a number of areas driverless cars are a crap shoot at best. And thus, lawsuits would be all over the place. Multiple driverless cars, on the same road, whether a highway or 2 lane road, would have issues with things like black ice, rain freezing (to ice). Multiple cars cannot know how the other will respond, thus if any car in a situation chooses a decision that conflicts with another car it's an accident waiting to happen. I will never in my lifetime be a passenger in a driverless car.
Ugh...I shouldn't have brought this back up, you're luring me in again. Your belief that multiple driverless cars can't work together while completely independent humans can is hard to wrap my mind around.

Also not being able to understand why you wouldn't want to drive the car...really? How bout sleeping, reading, watching a movie or many other completely free relaxing recreational activities? I would LOVE to turn my commute into 45 minutes of freedom.
For each it would/will be a choice. I prefer to have some control over a situation where I can make decisions that may help with my safety and well being and not be at the mercy of an external decision making entity.

I may not know everything about AI but was involved in it for years. There are, and will continue to be some situations where a smart system cannot make an optimal decision due to the many other variables and data (other cars) that can impact the decision made by each individual car. And that exists today with humans driving cars. But I can make my own decision now and will do so in the future.
I don't know where you get the idea "Multiple cars cannot know how the other will respond, thus if any car in a situation chooses a decision that conflicts with another car it's an accident waiting to happen."

That couldn't be further from the truth. Modern driverless technology isn't a bunch of independent cars driving around making decisions in the bubble of one computer in one car. The computer in one car is going to be in constant communication with the computers in surrounding/nearby cars constantly signaling when it is turning/switching lanes/speeding up/slowing down. Just like the internet allows us to communicate right now, the "internet of things" allows all these various computers to communicate in real-time.

I think it'll be a little while still before anyone takes away the option of a steering wheel (that'll be the real legal battle) but no matter your personal opinion on this subject you will be sharing the roads with driverless cars very, very soon.
Showing Messages: 151 - 175 of 300
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)