# How autonomous cars navigate public roads



## jhearcht (Feb 16, 2018)

I just saw a YouTube video about "what Tesla sees", which shows all of a Tesla's autopilot video inputs on one screen, along with overlays of calculated interpretations. It's eye-opening for those about to be replaced by autonomous vehicles.

The video reminded me of an old saying : "We applaud when a dog walks on its hind legs, not because it does it well, but because it does it at all". Just as a dog is not designed to walk upright, a digital computer is not designed to interpret its environment in terms of personal meaning. What we do instinctively without conscious thought, the Tesla does the hard way by massive crunching of meaningless numbers. The computed "values" are limited by the programmer's ability to foresee all eventualities.

It's amazing that an autonomous car can navigate public streets for thousands of miles with a much lower accident rate than a human. But when you see how it's done, you understand why the dog eventually reverts to four paws on the ground. Just thinking about how hard your autonomous UBER is thinking will make you sweat. 






PS__There are several similar videos available on YouTube


----------



## Linux Geek (Jul 1, 2016)

jhearcht said:


> It's mazing that an autonomous car can navigate public streets for thousands of miles with a much lower accident rate than a human.


I really don't think there are statistics to support this claim. There have been a number of instances of Tesla vehicles slamming into parked vehicles because of inability to discern stationary objects. It would be interesting to see what the accident rate for a Telsa or Waymo would be if given 1000 random Uber/Lyft trips.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Tesla's are specially designed to run into firetrucks and other emergency vehicles.


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Tesla's are specially designed to run into firetrucks and other emergency vehicles.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Linux Geek said:


> I really don't think there are statistics to support this claim. There have been a number of instances of Tesla vehicles slamming into parked vehicles because of inability to discern stationary objects. It would be interesting to see what the accident rate for a Telsa or Waymo would be if given 1000 random Uber/Lyft trips.


the stats actually show the exact opposite. they have a way higher crash rate per mile than humans do.


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

heynow321 said:


> the stats actually show the exact opposite. they have a way higher crash rate per mile than humans do.











SHOW US your "Stats"
Link?
Study?
Report?

Is this your official "stats" found on a refrigerator door?


----------



## jhearcht (Feb 16, 2018)

Linux Geek said:


> I really don't think there are statistics to support this claim. .


Most studies of crash per mile give autonomous cars the edge in safety. But such comparisons are necessarily flawed because most so-called "driverless vehicles" actually have humans behind the wheel, and a lot of those miles are in less-than-full autopilot mode (advanced cruise-control). As suggested, a fair contest would be to rate UBER cars with and without human pilots, mile for mile. But that ain't likely to happen. So, we'll just have to gradually learn to trust our techno-chauffeurs the same way we do for flesh&blood drivers, who may be tired, angry, frustrated, drunk, or high : give'em a try, and see how they do over time. Or as UBER passengers do : trust the system, not the stranger behind the wheel.

Which do you trust more : Internet gossip & rumors or academic & commercial studies?
https://www.fastcompany.com/3055356...iving-car-crash-rates-suggests-they-are-safer
https://theconversation.com/are-autonomous-cars-really-safer-than-human-drivers-90202


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

jhearcht said:


> Most studies of crash per mile give autonomous cars the edge in safety. But such comparisons are necessarily flawed because most so-called "driverless vehicles" actually have humans behind the wheel, and a lot of those miles are in less-than-full autopilot mode (advanced cruise-control). As suggested, a fair contest would be to rate UBER cars with and without human pilots, mile for mile. But that ain't likely to happen. So, we'll just have to gradually learn to trust our techno-chauffeurs the same way we do for flesh&blood drivers, who may be tired, angry, frustrated, drunk, or high : give'em a try, and see how they do over time. Or as UBER passengers do : trust the system, not the stranger behind the wheel.
> 
> Which do you trust more : Internet gossip & rumors or academic & commercial studies?
> https://www.fastcompany.com/3055356...iving-car-crash-rates-suggests-they-are-safer
> https://theconversation.com/are-autonomous-cars-really-safer-than-human-drivers-90202


You have no autonomous car history with which to base their safety on.

When you got video of any SDC driving on the road driving itself showing the human not touching the steering wheel for atleast more than 15 minutes feel free to show us.

Til then all you're doing is spouting unsubstantiated claims or lies.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


>


Yuuuuup . . ..




















Look


UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


> SHOW US your "Stats"
> Link?
> Study?
> Report?
> ...


Looks like a Higly Accurate Depiction !



uberdriverfornow said:


> Tesla's are specially designed to run into firetrucks and other emergency vehicles.


----------



## jhearcht (Feb 16, 2018)

jhearcht said:


> What we do instinctively without conscious thought, the Tesla does the hard way by massive crunching of meaningless numbers. The computed "values" are limited by the programmer's ability to foresee all eventualities.


My eyes tend to narrow whenever I hear "studies show". But, regardless of whether you trust mathematical statistics, many of us tend to be prejudiced against machines that act like humans. Since the early days of Luddite revolts against the machines that were taking their jobs, there has been a deeper sense of revulsion that didn't make the headlines. Humans tend to be both fascinated and freaked-out by animations : dead or mindless things that only_ seem_ to be alive or thinking (Frankenstein's monster; mechanical wizards). As the quote below implies, we have learned by experience to distrust vast soulless corporations and legal systems that take on a life of their own. That's why we appoint oversight boards and human judges for difficult cases, rather than allowing soulless capitalism or abstract laws to decide the fate of humans. Likewise, we are instinctively wary of soulless drivers in speeding vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles are Golems, they are "unerringly literal slaves" that lack discernment. Computers are much better than humans at calculating numerical values, but are hopeless at discerning personal feelings or intentions. What distinguished Adam & Eve from their animal brethren was their fruit-begotten knowledge of Good & Evil. Smart machines only know Ones and Zeros. Machine Logic is "only the skeleton of thought : syntax without semantics". Consequently, we may be wise to keep our mechanical golem slaves on a leash, and not to trust them unsupervised by their masters. But, I suspect that over time, we'll give them more and more slack, until they get equal rights. 

"Golems can thus be seen as the very real consequence of investing relentless logic with animate power. The true golems today are not artificial living beings, but rather bureaucracies, legal systems, and computers."
Incomplete Nature, by Terrence Deacon

Golem : a mindless man-made monster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

jhearcht said:


> My eyes tend to narrow whenever I hear "studies show". But, regardless of whether you trust mathematical statistics, many of us tend to be prejudiced against machines that act like humans. Since the early days of Luddite revolts against the machines that were taking their jobs, there has been a deeper sense of revulsion that didn't make the headlines. Humans tend to be both fascinated and freaked-out by animations : dead or mindless things that only_ seem_ to be alive or thinking (Frankenstein's monster; mechanical wizards). As the quote below implies, we have learned by experience to distrust vast soulless corporations and legal systems that take on a life of their own. That's why we appoint oversight boards and human judges for difficult cases, rather than allowing soulless capitalism or abstract laws to decide the fate of humans. Likewise, we are instinctively wary of soulless drivers in speeding vehicles.
> 
> Autonomous vehicles are Golems, they are "unerringly literal slaves" that lack discernment. Computers are much better than humans at calculating numerical values, but are hopeless at discerning personal feelings or intentions. What distinguished Adam & Eve from their animal brethren was their fruit-begotten knowledge of Good & Evil. Smart machines only know Ones and Zeros. Machine Logic is "only the skeleton of thought : syntax without semantics". Consequently, we may be wise to keep our mechanical golem slaves on a leash, and not to trust them unsupervised by their masters. But, I suspect that over time, we'll give them more and more slack, until they get equal rights.
> 
> ...


I don't just have a problem with robots. Robots in a closed environment that don't have the capacity to kill people are not the problem.

Robots that have the capacity to use a 2000+ pound vehicle that can instantly kill things out on the road are what I have a problem with. But I think this is common sense.


----------



## jhearcht (Feb 16, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Robots that have the capacity to use a 2000+ pound vehicle that can instantly kill things out on the road are what I have a problem with. But I think this is common sense.


The Attack of the Killer Robo-Taxis has begun! 

*Waymo unveils self-driving taxi service in Arizona for paying customers *
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...in-arizona-for-paying-customers-idUSKBN1O41M2


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

jhearcht said:


> The Attack of the Killer Robo-Taxis has begun!
> 
> *Waymo unveils self-driving taxi service in Arizona for paying customers *
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...in-arizona-for-paying-customers-idUSKBN1O41M2


When you got video showing supposed SDC driving riders around, showing the human driver not driving the car, for more than 10 minutes feel free to post the video here so everyone can be like you and be the first person to ever see a Waymo unicorn-SDC in real life.


----------



## jhearcht (Feb 16, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You have no autonomous car history with which to base their safety on.
> 
> When you got video of any SDC driving on the road driving itself showing the human not touching the steering wheel for atleast more than 15 minutes feel free to show us.
> 
> Til then all you're doing is spouting unsubstantiated claims or lies.


Ouch! You seem to be touchy about this driverless car business. I'm not planning to be an early adopter of this unproven technology, but I can still applaud the walking dog. We currently tolerate "102 deaths per day" in human-driven cars. Would you take such a risk, when you would be safer walking, or staying at home? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

I don't have any videos of "real driverless cars" or documented proof of the "moon landing lies", but here's an article that attempts to put the safety question into perspective. 

*Are autonomous cars really safer?*
"An automated system's limited understanding of the world means it will almost never evaluate a situation the same way a human would. And machines can't be specifically programmed in advance to handle every imaginable set of events."
https://theconversation.com/are-autonomous-cars-really-safer-than-human-drivers-90202


----------

