|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ryan Lochte jokes almost a full month after the Olympics? That is pretty impressive, unless we have some Dancing with the Stars fans in here. :tup: |
Quote:
And while there are those who may fully trust autonomous driving, you're still going to have plenty of people who aren't using it, and you still have to watch out for their unpredictable behavior. So as you say, you don't like the idea of people being completely reliant on tech, which could make them complacent, and potentially a worse driver, I see the first years of Autonomous driving being a lot of that. |
Quote:
https://youtu.be/qQkx-4pFjus https://www.google.com/amp/s/electre...n-dashcam/amp/ https://youtu.be/6Glf15CiEho |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. In keeping with your posted links, yes, they are responsible for killing people. 2. Even if they were able to, ya know, not plow into things and murder the person in the car, eventually whatever passes for its AI would have to make a decision on who or what gets hit in an unavoidable collision. Soooo... say you blow a tire, and coming to a completely safe stop is physically impossible. Now the ECU has to decide whether to plow into a tree, a ditch, another person, etc. How is that problem to be worked out? How is that decision to be made? What algorithm can be held accountable (or forgivable) for that decision? This situation would make the "unintended acceleration" problem look like a bad joke. Whether or not a human driver makes a good vs. bad (or lucky vs. unlucky) maneuver, a human response to an emergency is still likely to be quite different (if not "better") than even a highly sophisticated AI program -- and we aren't quite at that level of tech yet... By making the emergency response an AI problem, you would need some very clear, consensus agreed-upon ethical guidelines programmed in at minimum, but, ultimately, it still means a "robot" would have to decide who lives or dies. Even Rick Deckard wouldn't be be able to reconcile that one very easily... he'd have to retire the car. If they can at least get robot cars to stop crashing into things that are otherwise easily avoidable, I'd be more open to the idea... it could prevent a lot of accidents by sleepy/intoxicated/distracted/etc drivers, but first we need to see evidence that such cars won't go out of their way to cause accidents instead of avoiding them. |
Damn! Has society become so lazy that they don't even want to drive their cars anymore?? I mean what's next, we'll have robots having sex with our wives because we don't want to miss a football game? Ummmmm.......don't answer that. LOL
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Easiest way to get the driverless cars going is to only have them on highways, and in their own section of the highway like an express lane. That way the computers only have to deal with each other rather than human elements.
And if that happens, the manual control parts of the road may start to empty out, freeing up space for the rest of us. Win/win |
I hope we have the option of not wanting that tech
|
Quote:
Unless I was in need of a nap, I have a bad feeling I'd probably play chicken and hope the robots can cope. Anyway, I guess buying self-driving cars is one way for taxpayers to avoid having to invest in high-speed rail... :ugh2: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
90mph is my normal highway speed...... :wtf2: |
Quote:
|
^^ :rofl2: :rofl2:
|
i was sitting in a tesla the other day and my friend was driving with autopilot on. the point of autopilot isnt to make decisions for u. it requires you to focus on the driving without actually driving.
kinda like cruise control except now it stays in lane and avoid hitting the car in front for u. kinda like an airplane. i guess u guys mean full auto mode like u pick a location and it delivers u there. but that should still require someone to be "driving" just not actually driving. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
😄 |
What they need to do is stop half-a$$ing the implementation of technology. Either you are in full control of the vehicle or something else is in full control. None of this "well you don't have to do anything but you still have to pay attention" bull$hit like the current iterations. Of course, giving over full control to AI is extremely problematic in itself, like Jordo! points out. Although, I'm not convinced that an incompetent driver not paying attention has any chance of making a "better" decision in an emergency than a well-developed AI.
Frankly, the way I see it, the main problem is way too many people have drivers licenses to begin with, which makes everyone feel fuckin entitled to drive. If we made the driving test so that only competent people could get a license, the roads would be much safer. |
or make driver license test vehicles manual only. that will eliminate tons of drivers lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's not just testing people better. Heavier repercussions for delinquent insurance. Repeated testing throughout your life.
Of course with that you'll probably end up with more government nannies. Tradeoff? |
A lot of places here, like Los Angeles, don't have adequate public transportation for drivers licenses to be limited. A lot of people wouldn't be able to get to work or do a lot of other daily things.
|
Well, that's another sore point in the US. Our public transit outside of major cities kinda sucks. Dirty, unreliable, unuseful. On top of that, everyone wants their own vehicle anyway.
|
Quote:
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops - ABC News Quote:
|
Quote:
If so, that is bizarre. And yes, it's discrimination. Whatever that test measures, it's unlikely to reflect more than a fraction of what we consider "intelligence" anyway. In any case, the more intelligent applicants will deliberately score low to avoid that problem, at least if they are informed of it. Also, what does that say about those eventually being promoted to a detective? Why try and limit your key problem-solvers on intellect? I won't even get into the weaknesses of their theory in regard to intellect and boredom... or law enforcement, or anything for that matter... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Getting a little to close to talking politics here guys
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Lol it is not politics at all...it is psychology and it is backed up by research. It is not about ruling out smart people as IQ is not everything you want people that will not get burned out, know how to think independently but follow orders. Being a patrol cop takes unique person and in most cities and counties in America agencies spend a ton of money vetting potential candidates befor they go to an Academy for formal training and after that the person is put through rigorous field training with the agency of hire. It is about a 9 to 12 month process so you don't want to spend a lot of money on a person that will quit or wash out because they want to be Chief or question everything before they finish training.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, there is evidence that IQ test scores tend to be positively correlated with detail oriented processing, so one might argue they are defining police work on the basis of tedium-tolerance or something... which could be construed as a form of boredom-resistance. But detail oriented reasoning vs. looking for "broad stroke" sensory-perceptual events is going to vary incredibly from situation to situation, so I'm just going to assume they have some tests and aren't sure what many of them might actually measure. That's how it is in most organizations, frankly. Anyway, it's most likely some other personality or reasoning test that may or may not predict anything related to IQ, intelligence as a concept, etc. Actually, most of the most widely used, commercially available psychological inventories and skills tests are based on archaic theoretical views (meaning, either generally considered to be incorrect, very contained in meaningfulness, or incredibly culturally biased based on contemporary theory and research in the relevant phenomena to be assessed) and are frequently unreliable and/or invalid. And that's assuming someone can even score and interpret it. All I want to know is if law enforcement officer-applicants are given the old "F scale" personality test... a high scoring law-enforcement officer would be worrisome...:shakes head: What's wrong with questioning things? If that's the concern, they might consider administering the Need For Closure test... although it also isn't the greatest psychometric instrument out there for measuring the relevant constructs, which boil down to something like: prefers straightforward, "black & white" answers over ambiguous ones that may beg further questions to be mulled over. There's some newer, pretty good measures out there for assessing varying degrees of ambiguity tolerance and the variety of ways you can respond to the ambiguous. Long studied concept (ambiguity tolerance vs. intolerance) and its much more complex than it sounds. |
Let's change this topic on police. I have a lot of actual and factually why the NYPD would do something like that. Explaining that breaks forum policy. As is the topics now being discussed. We are supposed to be talking about Z's, not IQ tests and cops. Though it's my fault for saying people should have IQ tests to get licenses, which was also a derailing comment. My bad.
|
Why do people release news articles like this?:shakes head:
2017 Nissan 350Z, 240SX, Silvia might be the future sportscars |
Quote:
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think its probably best to keep the brain and penis as active as possible at all times :rofl2: http://www.the370z.com/members/jordo...oreyouknow.jpg |
Quote:
|
Any news on the Juke outside of the Grip Z that's also the concept for the Z? Lol. The Juke n Z will most likely be related if Nissan actually does follow through and give the Z a new platform? That being said.... Will the next GT-R be on that platform? If it is? That's 3 cars out of 5 cars supposedly coming out on the new Z familia. What would be the other two cars if true? I can the versa dying off and Nissan making a sporty hot hatch on the same platform making the Sentra the new entry car again with this hot hatch being the second offering.
I'm just really hoping the Z does get a new platform. With the Q60 doing a mustang and gaining weight when it was supposed to lose 180lbs. I'm hoping the rumor mill turns out to be true. The Z being built on a Juke chassis can't be all bad considering how awesome the Juke drive is. .. |
I LOVE the awd juke driving characteristics. Seems like a lot of people do. Now imagine that platform with WRX kind of power! CVT or not, its so much fun to drive!
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2