Comments by "filonin2" (@filonin2) on "$200,000/Year Jobs Replaced by Driverless Trucks" video.
-
2
-
AnEntropyFan
Yes they are in open traffic, yes they are viable, they are already on the road. Here is an excerpt from just the road testing of the google car: *"In 2012, the test group of vehicles included six Toyota Prius, an Audi TT, and three Lexus RX450h,[15] each accompanied in the driver's seat by one of a dozen drivers with unblemished driving records and in the passenger seat by one of Google's engineers. By May 2015, that fleet consisted solely of 23 Lexus SUVs.[21]
Google's vehicles have traversed San Francisco's Lombard Street, famed for its steep hairpin turns, and through city traffic. The vehicles have driven over the Golden Gate Bridge and around Lake Tahoe.[4] The system drives at the speed limit it has stored on its maps and maintains its distance from other vehicles using its system of sensors.[22] The system provides an override that allows a human driver to take control of the car by stepping on the brake or turning the wheel, similar to cruise control systems already found in many cars today.[3][23]
On March 28, 2012, Google posted a YouTube video showing Steve Mahan, a resident of Morgan Hill, California, being taken on a ride in Google's self-driving Toyota Prius. In the video, Mahan states "Ninety-five percent of my vision is gone, I'm well past legally blind". In the description of the YouTube video, it is noted that the carefully programmed route takes him from his home to a drive-through restaurant, then to the dry cleaning shop, and finally back home.[24][25]
In August 2012, the team announced that they have completed over 300,000 autonomous-driving miles (500,000 km) accident-free, typically have about a dozen cars on the road at any given time, and are starting to test them with single drivers instead of in pairs.[26] Four U.S. states have passed laws permitting autonomous cars as of December 2013: Nevada, Florida, California, and Michigan.[27] A law proposed in Texas would establish criteria for allowing "autonomous motor vehicles".[28][29]
In April 2014, the team announced that their vehicles have now logged nearly 700,000 autonomous miles (1.1 million km).[30] In late May, Google revealed a new prototype of its driverless car, which had no steering wheel, gas pedal, or brake pedal, being 100% autonomous.[31]"*
That is only for the Google car, many other manufacturers have models as well, some of which will be available in 2017-2020 which you could have known if you looked at the link I provided. Look it up before you continue to display your ignorance. Also, you may want to look into logical fallacy while you are at it, ad hominem against me is the opposite of a rebuttal. Try getting some evidence to back your point, although that will be difficult as you are incorrect.
1
-
1
-
AnEntropyFan
You are clearly refusing to read the articles and are still using ad hominem against me. You are making me sad :(. I cannot state this any clearer, these cars are fully autonomous, they drive themselves entirely without human interaction except for the entering of the destinations. You just get in and tell them where to go. They stop for read lights, drive the posted limit, and have cameras and radar to see the world and to detect unexpected obstructions. You would know this if you would do some research or had even read what I posted. A 95% blind man is being driven around town by himself. He can't even see the instruments. How autonomous do you want the cars to be? Do you want them to also do your job for you after they drive you to work? You seem to be confused as to strawmen as well as ad hominem. A strawman would be me constructing a false version of your argument, then attacking it. What I did was disagree with your argument, then provide evidence that countered it, which you preceded to ignore. Honestly, I don't understand why I still need to convince you. It is an easily confirmable fact that my position is true, you simply keep dismissing it out of hand because of personal incredulity, another fallacy BTW. Google it. Oh, since you let me know that you still don't understand ad hominem and do indeed need it defined, here you go good sir: "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments" Now that you have a firm understanding of this particular fallacy as well as others, I hope that our conversation may continue on a more civil level, no more poisoning the well either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
AnEntropyFan
None of your arguments matter, the cars are already on the road, driving right now in heavy traffic whether you think it is possible or not. You are arguing that reality isn't happening sir. You may as well be arguing about the impracticality of setting up a world wide communication network for people to communicate with. It's already been done bro. The cars are already able to detect and avoid unexpected obstacles using their radar, actual sentient machines are unneeded in this task. I will put this in bold and all caps so that you are sure to take note, THE CARS ARE FULLY AUTONOMOUS, THEY ARE DRIVING THE BLIND IN HEAVY TRAFFIC AND IN ALL WEATHER. IT IS ALREADY REAL. I apologize for that, but I've already told you and demonstrated these facts through evidence to no avail. If you think your arguments are valid, please show us how the problems you bring up are stopping autonomous cars, even though they are already on the road? When you say that these cars are not fully autonomous, what do you mean? They certainly don't fuel themselves nor do they drive themselves to the shop for repairs if you don't tell them to, but if you mean all the tasks of driving and parking, then they are fully autonomous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AnEntropyFan There we go! A perfect example of a strawman, you've got it now. I defined an autonomous car as being able to drive "entirely without human intervention from one destination to the other," which is what cars are designed to do and what they accomplish, requiring NO HUMAN DRIVING INPUT. Predator drones are not designed to go to a battlefield and kill autonomously, which is why it's pretty easy to argue that they aren't. They are perfectly capable of flying to and from the target by themselves though, using their sensors to avoid unexpected inflight obstacles. Now if cars were designed to kill people, and human operators took over when it was time for that, then you wouldn't have a straw man. The cars would not be completing all of their task autonomously, they would only be partially autonomous kill-mobiles. These autonomous cars are only designed to drive however, and they are always watching in all directions with radar for sudden obstacles and it's pretty unlikely that a car would judge something as large as a child as traversible. The cars can actually tell the distance and size of the obstacle better and can react more quickly than humans. Seems like most objects that large would cause damage to most vehicles. I don't know the specific reaction algorithms of the vehicles we are speaking about have, perhaps you should ask the engineers or do some research yourself into the matter if you doubt? Regardless of your fears, these vehicles are already on the roads, already reacting to unexpected situations, some are even planned to not have steering wheels, and some are already driving the blind. No one was helping the car drive the blind guy around. If someone cuts the car off or an animal runs in front of the car, it's the car's task to react, and IT DOES.
1
-
1