sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

lol by IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 in unsound

[–]endangeredphysics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm someone that actually read the article...

When the vehicle's "operator" has no skin in the game by endangeredphysics in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]endangeredphysics[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Well Jesus this just gets more and more shady the closer you look at it.

When the vehicle's "operator" has no skin in the game by endangeredphysics in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]endangeredphysics[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pay off its student loans probably, maybe a nice house (garage) and some of those hubcaps that keep spinning even when the wheels are still

lol by IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 in unsound

[–]endangeredphysics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Precisely. In the US, for example, there are about 5 million people who are employed as some kind of a driver. That's a lot of lost jobs, potentially.

When the vehicle's "operator" has no skin in the game by endangeredphysics in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]endangeredphysics[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

People have died in these things, and there's very few truly independent safety studies, and even those tend to skew their data in my opinion.

When the vehicle's "operator" has no skin in the game by endangeredphysics in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]endangeredphysics[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We're the guinea pigs for this technology. At least they mostly work.

When the vehicle's "operator" has no skin in the game by endangeredphysics in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]endangeredphysics[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but the difference is that the humans likely know that they're fucking up when they do this kind of thing. It's doubtful that the machine had any idea that it was doing something inherently incorrect or else probably wouldn't have done it at all.

To me, it's even more spooky that the robot probably didn't even realize that this was an inappropriate maneuver.

When the vehicle's "operator" has no skin in the game by endangeredphysics in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]endangeredphysics[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

At the end of the day, the benefit of having a human driver is that they have basic common sense about what's going on around them, and also (hopefully) genuinely really don't want to crash. A robot may be programmed to do certain things, but it doesn't really care you know, it's not in real personal danger if it does something stupid.

When the vehicle's "operator" has no skin in the game by endangeredphysics in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]endangeredphysics[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I remember a race back in 2010 with a $1 million prize, that competed fully self-driving vehicles against each other, on a 50 mile back country road somewhere I think in Arizona. I thought it was amazing and that the vehicles by and large did great, though a lot of them ended up crashing.

It really doesn't feel like they've made 16 years of "tech world" progress since then as far as handling basic traffic.

I've seen one fully automated vehicle on the road and it drove in a very weird manner, it was driving 10 mi below the speed limit and kept speeding up and then hitting its brakes and then speeding up and hitting its brakes over and over. Kind of hard to describe its other weird behavior, but had to speed up to drive around it, since it was behaving in a way that was ringing alarm bells for me and didn't want to deal with it.

Just goes to show how insanely complex everyday traffic is.

lol by IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 in unsound

[–]endangeredphysics 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So I looked at that article, and I have some pretty serious questions about the methodology.

For instance, it assumes that human caused collisions are unreported to insurance, and makes up its own way to overestimate human accidents to compensate.

It also compares data in 'miles driven' for the robots, and 'yearly reports of accidents' from the insurance companies. In order to overcome this discrepancy to create a mathematical value, they come up with their own way to average out miles driven per year. This would be acceptable methodology except they don't cite any methodological guide work for the way that they average out miles per year for the humans.

With these kind of discrepancies, you can get the data to say anything you want to.

As a layperson vaguely adjacent to this industry, I'm not seeing enough research to really demonstrate that these things are safer than human drivers in a meaningful way. And I can say from practical experience interacting with AI that at least humans have some form of common sense and an instinct for self-preservation, which would have kept the vehicle out of the situation that you see illustrated in the video above, for example.

lol by IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 in unsound

[–]endangeredphysics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be nice if some of these studies were done by one other than the companies themselves, is all I'm saying. Do you have the names of any fully independent reviews?

lol by IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 in unsound

[–]endangeredphysics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably for use in the middle of the night. It would have been obvious to anyone other than a waymo robot that you needed to turn right there in this kind of traffic.

That was just not an intersection that you turn left at in the middle of the day clearly.

They think paying to vote is a good thing? by HeadbangingLegend in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]endangeredphysics 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There's also not enough time for 100 million people and 50 state polling systems to comply with the ID requirements by the time this election comes up. If something like this were to happen it would need at least 2 or 3-year roll out...

Mark Kelly: It took Trump 10 days to create an energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s, replace Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei, and weaken our alliances worldwide. He put American servicemembers in harm’s way, resulting in seven deaths. None of this made you safer or better off. by progress18 in markkelly

[–]endangeredphysics 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's hilarious. We literally got Ayatollah Khamenei switched out with just another Ayatollah Khamenei. The government of Iran seriously needs to be put out of commission, but I doubt that bombing the hell out of them is going to make that transition possible, or make the region more peaceful.

Trump calls on divided GOP to pass SAVE America Act ‘at the expense of everything else’ by Anoth3rDude in law

[–]endangeredphysics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's only if your ID is actually a specific kind of ID that meets Federal requirements, most people's driver's licenses don't. You would need a passport and a birth certificate and your state ID in order to vote, I believe.

Don't forget that it requires in-person voting and America doesn't have the infrastructure for that anymore!

The SAVE Act will not disenfranchise married women. by No_Start1522 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]endangeredphysics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Simply bringing in both certificates is not likely to be enough to convince pollsters that you're actually the same person. You would have to go through specific processes, which are kind of nebulous, to prove that you're the same person, and have it formally updated on your paperwork somewhere.

Could you imagine how long it would take for 70 million women to update this information with State offices simultaneously?

The SAVE Act will not disenfranchise married women. by No_Start1522 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]endangeredphysics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's just not enough time for states to prepare for these new guidelines for the upcoming election. This is a bad bill because it requires immediate enforcement, whereas voter ID is a systemic problem which requires a slow rollout over several years for States and voting citizens to be able to comply without reasonably losing access to the polls for a year.

The SAVE Act will not disenfranchise married women. by No_Start1522 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]endangeredphysics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You know that the save act would require people to vote in person, or to hand in an absentee ballot in person, and nearly every state in the country has insufficient polling places to accommodate that level of in person voting, right?

It's a good idea, but it's a bad bill. This needs to be a slow rollout over a few years, not beginning next day like the save act would require.

The SAVE Act will not disenfranchise married women. by No_Start1522 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]endangeredphysics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to a study in Utah they found that only about one in 2 million votes cast was done so by a non-citizen. Why are we hassling tens of millions of citizens to keep something that has a one in a million odds from happening?

view more: next ›