Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 07/12/17 10:27, Jim Birch wrote: XKCD on self-driving cars ... Ken Kroeger, Executive Chairman of Seeing Machines gave a fascinating presentation on Monday night in Canberra about their technology for self-driving cars. Seeing machines makes head and eye tracking technology, originally

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

XKCD on self-driving cars: https://xkcd.com/1925/ On 17 November 2017 at 21:19, David Boxall wrote: > On 17/11/2017 9:57 AM, David Lochrin wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:16:08 David Boxall wrote: >> >>> Nobody really knows what we're doing, but we _are_ doing it. Some

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 17/11/2017 9:57 AM, David Lochrin wrote: On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:16:08 David Boxall wrote: Nobody really knows what we're doing, but we _are_ doing it. Some will huddle in a corner, whimpering. Others will get on with the job. And some will happily sit back and watch the circus unfold! ...

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:16:08 David Boxall wrote: > Nobody really knows what we're doing, but we _are_ doing it. > Some will huddle in a corner, whimpering. Others will get on with the job. And some will happily sit back and watch the circus unfold! David L.

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 16/11/2017 11:02 PM, Karl Auer wrote: ... The practical question of implementation only becomes relevant when there's agreement about the goal. No new technology has ever - EVER - followed that path. There will be no agreement about goals, no agreement about anything. People will get on

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 22:19 +1100, David wrote: > That won't work because you're asking people No I'm not. They will do it themselves, in droves, as soon as anything halfway useful comes on the matrket. As they are already doing with Tesla. > to place the lives of themselves and their families

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:03:07 David Boxall wrote: > I'd say if the autonomous system performs marginally better than the average > driver, then that's a good start. Average includes those who are drunk, > drugged, tired, distracted or stupid. That won't work because you're asking people to

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 16/11/2017 5:00 PM, Karl Auer wrote: ... somewhere, somehow, someone was stupid enough ... I recently had to employ a licenced cabler to run some cat5. I've done it hundreds of times, but now it's illegal. There are enough stupid people in the world doing enough foolish things that our

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 17:59 +1100, David wrote: > If you don't like my benchmark for an autonomous system designed for > vehicle control in any circumstances where a domestic or commercial > vehicle would now operate, would you like to propose one? I just think your benchmark is confused - in

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:00:47 Karl Auer wrote: > People are generally far too quick to set up straw men or impossible hurdles > for the purpose of attacking such technologies. Most of the arguments I've > seen against autonomous vehicles boil down to "I won't be trusting them > consarned things

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 15:18 +1100, Jim Birch wrote: > "It was not autonomous, the driver was legally in control." > That's a legal technicality, isn't it? No, not really. My old Subaru had cruise control, and in the handbook, in bold type, was the statement that "engaging cruise control does not

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 16/11/2017 3:18 PM, Jim Birch wrote: "It was not autonomous, the driver was legally in control." That's a legal technicality, isn't it? ... Perhaps, if the manufacturer had ever pretended that the vehicle was autonomous. To the contrary, they went to great pains to emphasise that the

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

"It was not autonomous, the driver was legally in control." That's a legal technicality, isn't it? My bottom line would that the autopilot failed in this case (and should, and presumably was, improved.) This is one data point. It proves nothing except that machine car control is not perfect

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 15/11/2017 10:44 PM, Karl Auer wrote: ... Wonder how it would have played out if that truck had been autonomous too. ... For a start, the Tesla was in "driver-assist" mode. It was not autonomous, the driver was legally in control. The Tesla had radar and computer vision, but the software

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 14:32 +1100, David wrote: > > This is a complex task, but guess what? Computer systems can > > already drive cars, and they can do it well. > Not when they T-bone trucks and kill the driver! Humans do the same thing - hundreds or thousands of times worldwide every day and

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:20 Jim Birch wrote: >>> This is a complex task, but guess what? Computer systems can already drive >>> cars, and they can do it well. >> >> Not when they T-bone trucks and kill the driver! > > Choosing anecdotal evidence seems wrong to me. Personally I'd prefer a >

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 15 November 2017 at 14:32, David wrote: > > This is a complex task, but guess what? Computer systems can already > drive cars, and they can do it well. > > Not when they T-bone trucks and kill the driver! > Choosing anecdotal evidence seems wrong to me. Personally I'd

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:39:49 Jim Birch wrote: > Improvement doesn't require perfection. It only requires replacing things > with something better. If we were all expert, sober, emotionally stable, > continuously attentive drivers that would raise the bar for automated > vehicles, but clearly

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

David wrote: > The prognostications of so-called "elder statesmen" do not have a good > record. Especially if you cherry pick them. > More recently we had the Prime Minister, an experienced & senior lawyer, > declare that ... (Unfortunately for us) politician are in the business of

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:49:31 Jim Birch wrote: > Auto-industry elder statesman declares game over. “It saddens me to say it, > but we are approaching the end of the automotive era. [...] The end state > will be the fully autonomous module [...] The prognostications of so-called "elder

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 13/11/17 13:46, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote: On 13/11/2017 11:49 AM, Jim Birch wrote: Auto-industry elder statesman declares game over. “It saddens me to say it, but we are approaching the end of the automotive era. Some, most, all (?) accidents happen because of unexpected circumstances.

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On 13/11/2017 11:49 AM, Jim Birch wrote: > Auto-industry elder statesman declares game over. “It saddens me to say it, > but we are approaching the end of the automotive era. Some, most, all (?) accidents happen because of unexpected circumstances. What are the chances that automated systems can

Re: [LINK] Cars, again

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Jim Birch wrote: Auto-industry elder statesman declares game over. ?It saddens me to say it, but we are approaching the end of the automotive era. Travel will be in Personally I'd love to have a self-driving car. Instead of driving I can use my time in the car more