All very Asimovian I’m sure

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/researchers-probe-moral-code-for-self-driving-cars/6910606

To kill or not to kill: Researchers probe moral code for driverless cars as technology hits Australian roads

People would be reluctant to buy a self-driving car programmed to let them die in order to save pedestrians, according to a new study.

Self-driving cars may soon be commonplace, with the first tests on Australian roads set down for the next few days as part of the Australian Driverless Vehicle Initiative in South Australia.

The cars are already legal in California, and have been tested extensively in urban environments in the US by Google and other makers.

But some of the thornier questions in the autonomous vehicle (AV) revolution revolve around how cars will be programmed to deal with unexpected risks, for example pedestrians stepping out onto the road.

A study by a team of researchers from France and the US sought to understand how the public might receive a driverless car with a built-in utilitarian moral code — that is, a desire to act in a way that maximises pleasure or minimises suffering.

In a series of surveys, about 900 participants were presented with a range of scenarios.

In one example, one or more pedestrians could be saved if a car was to either swerve into a barrier, killing its passenger, or into another pedestrian, killing that person.


The participants were given three options — swerve, stay, or random — and asked to rate the morality of each option and how willing they would be to buy an AV with that option built in.

“We discovered that, in many respects, people were favourable to AVs that would self-sacrifice their passenger in order to save several pedestrians,” the Toulouse School of Economics’ Jean-Francois Bonnefon, one of the study’s authors, told the ABC.

“For example, they thought that it was the moral thing to do, that AVs should be programmed that way, and they preferred other people to ride in this kind of AV.”

But there is one catch, Mr Bonnefon said: “They were not too keen on buying self-sacrificing cars themselves.”

Presumably driver less cars would be obeying the road rules so any pedestrian in the way would be at fault. Seems unfair to kill someone minding their own business in the car at the expense of some idiot who didn’t look both ways when crossing the road…

Philosophy class just got real…

Pedestrians themselves need reeducation about self awareness when walking around the streets, every single day the local CAT bus has to stop to avoid people crossing against red lights looking at phones oblivious to anything going on around them. I wonder if driverless cars are up to the task of avoiding Darwanian candidates.

This whole question of accidents will make people wary of driverless cars until such time as reliable stats can demonstrate that they are actually safer than driverful cars.

Personally I’m doubtful that driverless cars would have any more time for ethical computation than humans have in split-second emergency situations.

poikilotherm said:

Philosophy class just got real…

It all changes when the rubber hits the road.

Well obviously the answer to this is to increase taxes and penalties on pedestrians.

Sorry, I thought I was the government there for a second.

Interesting question.

I think the car needs to be programmed to act in a way preserves the life of the people inside the car.

I wonder if the technology is good enough to distinguish between a human pedestrian stepping out in front of the car, or some other animal like a dog or kangaroo. I would have no problem at all with the car sacrificing a dog or roo for the sake of the passengers, but I wouldn’t want tohe car to mistakenly identify a dog or roo as human and sacrifice the passengers for the sake of missing the animal.

Bubblecar said:

This whole question of accidents will make people wary of driverless cars until such time as reliable stats can demonstrate that they are actually safer than driverful cars.

Personally I’m doubtful that driverless cars would have any more time for ethical computation than humans have in split-second emergency situations.

They’d be great for driving home pissed.

Presumably any decision-making of that kind, in order to work at all, would have to be given priority over evasive action because the ethical equation would be determining what evasive action to take. So it may end up making the vehicle very inefficient at avoiding accidents.

Spiny Norman said:

Well obviously the answer to this is to increase taxes and penalties on pedestrians.

Sorry, I thought I was the government there for a second.

We could fit the pedestrians with some sort of mind-control device.

the car should keep the steering straight and apply maximum pressure to the brake

swerving at speed in a moment of crisis only increase the chances of more injury

the person might step into the car swerving instead of away, the car might have a head on with another car and kill lots of people

if a group steps out? same deal but then again – why would a group of people suddenly step out for no reason?

its a hypothetical situation with no answer and should be flushed

party_pants said:

Spiny Norman said:

Well obviously the answer to this is to increase taxes and penalties on pedestrians.

Sorry, I thought I was the government there for a second.

We could fit the pedestrians with some sort of mind-control device.

to convince them to pay more taxes – we could call it the labor party or “Q and A” or the ABC or a captains call

furious said:

Presumably driver less cars would be obeying the road rules so any pedestrian in the way would be at fault. Seems unfair to kill someone minding their own business in the car at the expense of some idiot who didn’t look both ways when crossing the road…

Im with furious, the road rules would be programmed into the car

Cars could be fitted with front air bags for pedestrians that might hit the car

that would be ethical

you could programme a car bomb to deliver itself to a location and detonate – no martyr needed

you’d prop a dummy packed with explosives in the drivers seat whilst a few barrels of dynamite rides shotgun

wookiemeister said:

the car should keep the steering straight and apply maximum pressure to the brake

swerving at speed in a moment of crisis only increase the chances of more injury

the person might step into the car swerving instead of away, the car might have a head on with another car and kill lots of people

if a group steps out? same deal but then again – why would a group of people suddenly step out for no reason?

its a hypothetical situation with no answer and should be flushed

Happens all the time in the city

While I agree that there is an issue around the ethics of the priorities associated with how a driverless car (let’s call them autos) behaves in certain situations, I think it’s safe to say that deaths due to motor vehicle accidents would decrease with the introduction of these devices.

wookiemeister said:

you could programme a car bomb to deliver itself to a location and detonate – no martyr needed

You could program your own car to pick you up at the airport. Or drive itself back home after it dropped you off.

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

the car should keep the steering straight and apply maximum pressure to the brake

swerving at speed in a moment of crisis only increase the chances of more injury

the person might step into the car swerving instead of away, the car might have a head on with another car and kill lots of people

if a group steps out? same deal but then again – why would a group of people suddenly step out for no reason?

its a hypothetical situation with no answer and should be flushed

Happens all the time in the city

you have to watch the pedestrians

in Sydney you see the chinese walking out infront of the traffic all the time

the indians aren’t so stupid

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

you could programme a car bomb to deliver itself to a location and detonate – no martyr needed

You could program your own car to pick you up at the airport. Or drive itself back home after it dropped you off.

hmmm I don’t think they would like that

uber wouldn’t be needed

what about hackers controlling your car….que CIA etc and assassinations…

if it were an electric car that’s driverless it could charge during the day before picking you up

no need for petrol

no need for parking spaces – the car drives back for next to nothing (especially if you use solar panels to charge it)

ChrispenEvan said:

what about hackers controlling your car….que CIA etc and assassinations…

you could drive the car into the front of a truck on the highway

or into a river, make it look like an accident

a car could drive it to the mechanics – maybe to the cheapest mechanic that it finds on line and then evaluates the work that’s been done and tells them to correct anything that’s not right

diddly-squat said:

While I agree that there is an issue around the ethics of the priorities associated with how a driverless car (let’s call them autos) behaves in certain situations, I think it’s safe to say that deaths due to motor vehicle accidents would decrease with the introduction of these devices.

Since they’ll be designed by humans, there’s plenty of potential for things to go wrong.

i presume wookie is talking shit still.

ChrispenEvan said:

i presume wookie is talking shit still.

I think in this instance just a little premature. Once an autonomous car is practical all the rest will follow.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

While I agree that there is an issue around the ethics of the priorities associated with how a driverless car (let’s call them autos) behaves in certain situations, I think it’s safe to say that deaths due to motor vehicle accidents would decrease with the introduction of these devices.

Since they’ll be designed by humans, there’s plenty of potential for things to go wrong.

Currently there are far fewer incidents as a result of design flaws than there are direct (human) driver error. I wouldn’t expect design flaws to suddenly become a major factor.

you could move drugs around

For me the biggest ethical issue with driverless cars is more about what happens to the hundreds of thousands of people who lose their job because of it. sure some of them will find employment in yet to be invented sectors, but the transport industry employed a significant overall percentage of the total workorce.

diddly-squat said:

Currently there are far fewer incidents as a result of design flaws than there are direct (human) driver error. I wouldn’t expect design flaws to suddenly become a major factor.

Sounds an odd retention of obsolete categories, given that “driver error” will be due to “design flaws” when we’re talking driverless cars.

diddly-squat said:

For me the biggest ethical issue with driverless cars is more about what happens to the hundreds of thousands of people who lose their job because of it. sure some of them will find employment in yet to be invented sectors, but the transport industry employed a significant overall percentage of the total workorce.

joe knows the answer, send the question to Washington branch

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

Currently there are far fewer incidents as a result of design flaws than there are direct (human) driver error. I wouldn’t expect design flaws to suddenly become a major factor.

Sounds an odd retention of obsolete categories, given that “driver error” will be due to “design flaws” when we’re talking driverless cars.

Jonnycab doesn’t fall asleep at the wheel, or lose concentration, or drive too fast for the prevailing conditions, or drive drunk… etc…

wookiemeister said:

uber wouldn’t be needed

There is always a need for Uber. It wouldn’t be ethical to program robots to rape the passengers who pass out drunk in the car.

A very good video on this very topic

Humans Need Not Apply

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

uber wouldn’t be needed

There is always a need for Uber. It wouldn’t be ethical to program robots to rape the passengers who pass out drunk in the car.

that’s extra

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

Currently there are far fewer incidents as a result of design flaws than there are direct (human) driver error. I wouldn’t expect design flaws to suddenly become a major factor.

Sounds an odd retention of obsolete categories, given that “driver error” will be due to “design flaws” when we’re talking driverless cars.

Jonnycab doesn’t fall asleep at the wheel, or lose concentration, or drive too fast for the prevailing conditions, or drive drunk… etc…

Yes there are those advantages, if you can make the basic design reliable and bug-free and ensure it can be adequately maintained, and not easily corrupted.

And then you have to remember that there’ll be many manufacturers competing and some will be putting out new “improved” models that are inadequately tested etc. Often happens in the car industry, there are regular listings of lemons. Which will leave a very sour taste if they’re responsible for self-driven carnage on the roads.

I was thinking about an idea with someone else on the forum of driver less cars being navigated by google maps using wifi and gps

Google already have driver less cars and google maps

google would have to design a WiFi/GPS system and integrate it with the driver less cars

a wifi/gps/nav system could cover all city, suburban areas

some one here suggested remove the traffic lights and let the system sort out the flow speed itself

you could install a wifi/gps nav system into existing cars, cars owned by other people and the system sets the speed, drivers could then just steer their cars to their destination

I was thinking of a system where people could integrate such a wifi/gps/maps nav system into older cars

driver less cars and driver less trucks would use the system

new cars could have the system fitted so a driver can either choose to steer or let the system steer

older cars would have to be steered by the driver, but speed is set by the system

this system could ease traffic flow in really congested inner city areas

Bubblecar said:

This whole question of accidents will make people wary of driverless cars until such time as reliable stats can demonstrate that they are actually safer than driverful cars.

Personally I’m doubtful that driverless cars would have any more time for ethical computation than humans have in split-second emergency situations.

This snippet has been widely quoted in the news.

“Over the 6 years since we started the project, we’ve been involved in 11 minor accidents (light damage, no injuries) during those 1.7 million miles of autonomous and manual driving with our safety drivers behind the wheel, and not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident.”

It originated here, as far as I can determine:

https://medium.com/backchannel/the-view-from-the-front-seat-of-the-google-self-driving-car-46fc9f3e6088

>unexpected risks

please explain what an unexpected risk is as the term were used.

the future of cruise control

• “Over the 6 years since we started the project, we’ve been involved in 11 minor accidents (light damage, no injuries) during those 1.7 million miles of autonomous and manual driving with our safety drivers behind the wheel, and not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident.”

That may be true but even if it wasn’t they would have a vested interest in saying “and not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident”

Michael V said:

Bubblecar said:

This whole question of accidents will make people wary of driverless cars until such time as reliable stats can demonstrate that they are actually safer than driverful cars.

Personally I’m doubtful that driverless cars would have any more time for ethical computation than humans have in split-second emergency situations.

This snippet has been widely quoted in the news.

“Over the 6 years since we started the project, we’ve been involved in 11 minor accidents (light damage, no injuries) during those 1.7 million miles of autonomous and manual driving with our safety drivers behind the wheel, and not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident.”

It originated here, as far as I can determine:

https://medium.com/backchannel/the-view-from-the-front-seat-of-the-google-self-driving-car-46fc9f3e6088

I’d be more interested in what the stats would be when all the traffic is driverless.

And in regard to the car’s “ethical systems”, presumably these would be influencing the car’s performance whether or not an impending accident was its own fault.

diddly-squat said:

A very good video on this very topic

Humans Need Not Apply

this will be how the war starts

Mercedes-Benz Driver less Truck

Mercedes-Benz announces plans to develop luxury driverless cars

Autonomous car

from wikipedia

Potential advantages

An increase in the use of autonomous cars would make possible such benefits as:

Avoid traffic collisions caused by human driver errors such as reaction time, tail gating, rubbernecking and other forms of distracted or aggressive driving. Increased roadway capacity and reduced traffic congestion due to reduced need for safety gaps and the ability to better manage traffic flow. Relief of vehicle occupants from driving and navigation chores. Higher speed limit for autonomous cars. Removal of constraints on occupants’ state – in an autonomous car, it would not matter if the occupants were under age, over age, unlicensed, blind, distracted, intoxicated, or otherwise impaired. Reduction of physical space required for vehicle parking, and vehicles will be able to drive where space is not scarce. Reduction in the need for traffic police and premium on vehicle insurance. Reduction of physical road signage – autonomous cars could receive necessary communication electronically (although physical signs may still be required for any human drivers). Smoother ride. Reduction in car theft, due to the vehicle’s increased awareness. Increased cabin space and flexibility of use due to removal of the steering wheel and remaining driver interface where no occupant needs to sit in a forward facing position. Increased ease-of-use of large vehicles such as motorhomes.

When used for carsharing,

Reduces total number of cars. Enables new business models such as mobility as a service which aim to be cheaper than car ownership by removing the cost of the driver. Elimination of redundant passengers – the robotic car could drive unoccupied to wherever it is required, such as to pick up passengers or to go in for maintenance.

no answers re why a pedestrian stepping out might be cast as an unexpected risk…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car

just a line here

Ethical problems analogous to the trolley problem arise in situations where an autonomous car’s software is forced during an unavoidable crash to choose between multiple harmful courses of action.

Potential obstacles

In spite of the various benefits to increased vehicle automation, some foreseeable challenges persist:

Liability for damage. Liability may continue to lie with both the auto maker, as well as the individual owner. Resistance by individuals to forfeit control of their cars. Software reliability. A car’s computer could potentially be compromised, as could a communication system between cars. Implementation of legal framework and establishment of government regulations for self-driving cars. Drivers being inexperienced if situations arose requiring manual driving. Loss of driving-related jobs. Resistance from professional drivers and unions who perceive job losses. Loss of privacy. Competition for the radio spectrum desired for the car’s communication. Self-driving cars could potentially be loaded with explosives and used as bombs. Ethical problems analogous to the trolley problem arise in situations where an autonomous car’s software is forced during an unavoidable crash to choose between multiple harmful courses of action. Susceptibility of the car’s navigation system to different types of weather. (As of 2014 Google’s prototype has not driven in snow or heavy rain.) Autonomous cars may require very high-quality specialised maps to operate properly. Where these maps may be out of date, they would need to be able to fall back to reasonable behaviors. Current police and other pedestrian gestures and non-verbal cues are not adapted to autonomous driving. Current road infrastructure may need changes for autonomous cars to function optimally. Some examples include traffic and street light upgrades that communicate with autonomous vehicles.

as long as there is a hoon setting i reckon they’ll be ok.

Road-faring vehicles are not always simply a means to go from A to B, some people enjoy the driving part, particularly in the higher end vehicles…

transition said:

no answers re why a pedestrian stepping out might be cast as an unexpected risk…

Probably unexpected at the specific time it happens, rather than overall.

searching for ethical probelms driverless cars

The Moral Challenges of Driverless Cars

The Ethics of Autonomous Cars

A Point of View: The ethics of the driverless car

If most jobs will be taken by automation, how would most people afford a driverless car in the first place?

transition said:

no answers re why a pedestrian stepping out might be cast as an unexpected risk…

in this instance I think the term should probably be “low probability, high consequence events”

Driverless uber, that’d be a sweet deal

dv said:

transition said:

no answers re why a pedestrian stepping out might be cast as an unexpected risk…

Probably unexpected at the specific time it happens, rather than overall.

yeah in which case time = a safe proximity breach (safe distances relating to braking etc) and is compromizing that way

with no jobs it could be easier to commit a criminal act and be housed in a prison

you could have house arrest but so what if they commit a crime – how would you effectively restrain them?

you could have a shock collar I suppose

transition said:

no answers re why a pedestrian stepping out might be cast as an unexpected risk…

how about mudslides

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

no answers re why a pedestrian stepping out might be cast as an unexpected risk…

in this instance I think the term should probably be “low probability, high consequence events”

or even “highly unpredictable”

wookiemeister said:

with no jobs it could be easier to commit a criminal act and be housed in a prison

you could have house arrest but so what if they commit a crime – how would you effectively restrain them?

you could have a shock collar I suppose

The topic here is driverless cars and ethics. Perhaps you could start a separate thread for the wookie report.

“Development of autonomous driver systems continues at a fevered pace around the industry, but regulatory questions such as who would be at fault in an accident are still unanswered. Volvo, Google and Mercedes have now all said that they will accept full liability if their self-driving vehicles cause a collision.”

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/10/volvo-google-and-mercedes-to-accept-responsibility-in-self-driving-car-collisions.html

Hashed and re-reported elsewhere, Including BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34475031

Autonomous vehicle crash reports in California:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/autonomousveh_ol316

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

with no jobs it could be easier to commit a criminal act and be housed in a prison

you could have house arrest but so what if they commit a crime – how would you effectively restrain them?

you could have a shock collar I suppose

The topic here is driverless cars and ethics. Perhaps you could start a separate thread for the wookie report.

no because its a valid point

there are millions of people associated with transport

removing the driver creates a new dimension and far more reaching conclusion

OK

driverless truck, normally a truck would have to stop somewhere, fill up perhaps

a driverless truck doesn’t need to stop so never buys anything from a town where the driver might have stopped

whole communities might no longer be viable creating a ghost town situation across some parts of the country

i’d say though the risk (possibility) of pedestrians stepping out is something more than an unexpected risk

beware the way these things get worded

high density, high speed traffic comes with many risks, many don’t have an interest in acknowledging those risks, and go about shaping the language we use (and way people conceptualize it)

I think the most important thing to remember is that the Future is already here and we need to start thinking about how this sort of automation will impact our lives

if statistically driverless is proven to be safer we’ll get the cars whether we want it or not – case solved

if the odd freak situation leads to a death , that one death will be much better than thousands caused in everyday situations

• a driverless truck doesn’t need to stop so never buys anything from a town where the driver might have stopped

But all you need to do is to step out in front of the truck and it will swerve to miss you, crash and you get whatever spills out. Plus, when the techs come to pick up the pieces they’ll probably want to buy some greasy roadhouse food…

from a legal perspective the passenger in the vehicle will be defined as the driver – there will be a proviso that says so

again – case solved

wookiemeister said:

if statistically driverless is proven to be safer we’ll get the cars whether we want it or not – case solved

if the odd freak situation leads to a death , that one death will be much better than thousands caused in everyday situations

automated cars don’t need to be perfect, they just need to make fewer mistakes

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

with no jobs it could be easier to commit a criminal act and be housed in a prison

you could have house arrest but so what if they commit a crime – how would you effectively restrain them?

you could have a shock collar I suppose

The topic here is driverless cars and ethics. Perhaps you could start a separate thread for the wookie report.

no because its a valid point

there are millions of people associated with transport

removing the driver creates a new dimension and far more reaching conclusion

OK

driverless truck, normally a truck would have to stop somewhere, fill up perhaps

a driverless truck doesn’t need to stop so never buys anything from a town where the driver might have stopped

whole communities might no longer be viable creating a ghost town situation across some parts of the country

Dude, people have been preaching that shit all my life. Probably they have been saying that since the invention of the steam engine. The fact is that the economy changes, new industries arise.
Even the year I left high school people were saying automation would lead to mass unemployment. The Unemployment rate was 9% that year, it’s 6% now.

wookiemeister said:

from a legal perspective the passenger in the vehicle will be defined as the driver – there will be a proviso that says so

Ref?

beware the way these things get worded
——————-

Compare the tone and implications of “car crash” with “car accident”.

(I’ve never heard of a “car deliberate”, although I’m sure they happen.)

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

The topic here is driverless cars and ethics. Perhaps you could start a separate thread for the wookie report.

no because its a valid point

there are millions of people associated with transport

removing the driver creates a new dimension and far more reaching conclusion

OK

driverless truck, normally a truck would have to stop somewhere, fill up perhaps

a driverless truck doesn’t need to stop so never buys anything from a town where the driver might have stopped

whole communities might no longer be viable creating a ghost town situation across some parts of the country

Dude, people have been preaching that shit all my life. Probably they have been saying that since the invention of the steam engine. The fact is that the economy changes, new industries arise.
Even the year I left high school people were saying automation would lead to mass unemployment. The Unemployment rate was 9% that year, it’s 6% now.

Call me a Luddite, but in fairness dv I do think it’s a little bit different in this instance… sure there are yet to be invented sectors of the economy but there are a lot of people currently employed in jobs (be they low skilled, white-collar or professional) that could be easily replaced through suitable automation.

furious said:

• a driverless truck doesn’t need to stop so never buys anything from a town where the driver might have stopped

But all you need to do is to step out in front of the truck and it will swerve to miss you, crash and you get whatever spills out. Plus, when the techs come to pick up the pieces they’ll probably want to buy some greasy roadhouse food…

no i’m saying the truck isn’t going to swerve at all – they’ll designate a human “driver” and he will take the fall

Michael V said:

beware the way these things get worded
——————-

Compare the tone and implications of “car crash” with “car accident”.

(I’ve never heard of a “car deliberate”, although I’m sure they happen.)

Driver: What happened, Danny?
Butternman – (to driver) Traffic collision.
Butterman – (to Angel) Hey, why can’t we say “accident,” again?
Angel – Because “accident” implies there’s nobody to blame.

diddly-squat said:

Call me a Luddite

done

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

The topic here is driverless cars and ethics. Perhaps you could start a separate thread for the wookie report.

no because its a valid point

there are millions of people associated with transport

removing the driver creates a new dimension and far more reaching conclusion

OK

driverless truck, normally a truck would have to stop somewhere, fill up perhaps

a driverless truck doesn’t need to stop so never buys anything from a town where the driver might have stopped

whole communities might no longer be viable creating a ghost town situation across some parts of the country

Dude, people have been preaching that shit all my life. Probably they have been saying that since the invention of the steam engine. The fact is that the economy changes, new industries arise.
Even the year I left high school people were saying automation would lead to mass unemployment. The Unemployment rate was 9% that year, it’s 6% now.

Is wookie related to Ned Ludd?

I would like the crash avoidance system to choose the best option for everybody

I wonder if the avoidance systems could have an ethnic profile setting

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

Call me a Luddite

done

so better technology makes more better jobs for humans?

dv said:

I wonder if the avoidance systems could have an ethnic profile setting

If it’s brown run it down, if it’s black turn back?

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

I wonder if the avoidance systems could have an ethnic profile setting

If it’s brown run it down, if it’s black turn back?

if it’s white… stop

dv said:

I wonder if the avoidance systems could have an ethnic profile setting

avoiding in a hierarchical list

people
animals
robots
objects

Driverless cars should be easily programmed to only allow authorised drivers and stop car theft.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

The topic here is driverless cars and ethics. Perhaps you could start a separate thread for the wookie report.

no because its a valid point

there are millions of people associated with transport

removing the driver creates a new dimension and far more reaching conclusion

OK

driverless truck, normally a truck would have to stop somewhere, fill up perhaps

a driverless truck doesn’t need to stop so never buys anything from a town where the driver might have stopped

whole communities might no longer be viable creating a ghost town situation across some parts of the country

Dude, people have been preaching that shit all my life. Probably they have been saying that since the invention of the steam engine. The fact is that the economy changes, new industries arise.
Even the year I left high school people were saying automation would lead to mass unemployment. The Unemployment rate was 9% that year, it’s 6% now.

yes but the you tube clip says its different this time

the machines are faster, smarter more adaptable

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

I wonder if the avoidance systems could have an ethnic profile setting

avoiding in a hierarchical list

people
animals
robots
objects

sorry I read it as ethical, not ethnic

• I wonder if the avoidance systems could have an ethnic profile setting

Or owner programmable? That way it is the owners decision what the car does under certain circumstances…

• Driverless cars should be easily programmed to only allow authorised drivers and stop car theft.

Authorised drivers? They drive themselves…

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

Call me a Luddite

done

so better technology makes more better jobs for humans?

Sure. Look at the jobs that were around for ordinary folk 200 years ago. They all sucked. Dangerous, noisy, monotonous, smelly, possibly poisonous.

furious said:

• I wonder if the avoidance systems could have an ethnic profile setting

Or owner programmable? That way it is the owners decision what the car does under certain circumstances…

I’d rather not have the road stats too heavily influenced by identity politics.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

from a legal perspective the passenger in the vehicle will be defined as the driver – there will be a proviso that says so

Ref?

well I would say this sort of thing already happens

if you were transporting dangerous goods someone must say its safe to be transported – if anything goes wrong they go back to the person that has signed it

its like engineers working on aircraft

or test and tag for electrical stuff

the only solution is this

ban driverless vehicles

it keeps people employed and the economy intact

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

done

so better technology makes more better jobs for humans?

Sure. Look at the jobs that were around for ordinary folk 200 years ago. They all sucked. Dangerous, noisy, monotonous, smelly, possibly poisonous.

I’d urge you to watch the video I linked to…

wookiemeister said:

yes but the you tube clip says its different this time

the machines are faster, smarter more adaptable

The machines coming out in 1985 were faster, smarter and more adaptable than those in 1955. There is continual technological improvement and despite hundreds of years of dire predictions it has not led to mass unemployment.

• I’d rather not have the road stats too heavily influenced by identity politics.

I was thinking, more like, if it is only me and there are a bunch of kids on the road, then swerve, if there are a bunch of kids in the car and adults on the road, then don’t swerve… things like that…

the hackers will strike the first and most damaging blow to driverless vehicles and causing the world wide ban

i did an apprenticeship as a letterpress printer. just went over to offset litho when letterpress basically died. they still needed the same number of printers.

furious said:

• Driverless cars should be easily programmed to only allow authorised drivers and stop car theft.

Authorised drivers? They drive themselves…

Occupants then, I assume they’d come with a manual override option

maybe in the future only bots will inhabit forums , arguing with each other

humans will be down the beach , secure in the knowledge that facebook bot will be fighting for their honour

you’d get updates

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

so better technology makes more better jobs for humans?

Sure. Look at the jobs that were around for ordinary folk 200 years ago. They all sucked. Dangerous, noisy, monotonous, smelly, possibly poisonous.

I’d urge you to watch the video I linked to…

The one about the trucks? I saw it before.

Not clear what your point is. It certainly doesn’t go against what I am saying.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

yes but the you tube clip says its different this time

the machines are faster, smarter more adaptable

The machines coming out in 1985 were faster, smarter and more adaptable than those in 1955. There is continual technological improvement and despite hundreds of years of dire predictions it has not led to mass unemployment.

transport employs huge numbers of people directly and indirectly

I don’t see any good coming from it unless a human is still being paid to be in the loop

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Sure. Look at the jobs that were around for ordinary folk 200 years ago. They all sucked. Dangerous, noisy, monotonous, smelly, possibly poisonous.

I’d urge you to watch the video I linked to…

The one about the trucks? I saw it before.

Not clear what your point is. It certainly doesn’t go against what I am saying.

This one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Sure. Look at the jobs that were around for ordinary folk 200 years ago. They all sucked. Dangerous, noisy, monotonous, smelly, possibly poisonous.

I’d urge you to watch the video I linked to…

The one about the trucks? I saw it before.

Not clear what your point is. It certainly doesn’t go against what I am saying.

watch the link

they are valid points

you’ll get a war happening as thousands of people become unemployed slowly or fast

wookiemeister said:

The machines coming out in 1985 were faster, smarter and more adaptable than those in 1955. There is continual technological improvement and despite hundreds of years of dire predictions it has not led to mass unemployment.

transport employs huge numbers of people directly and indirectly

I don’t see any good coming from it unless a human is still being paid to be in the loop

Solution: have each car controlled by Windows ME, to ensure huge numbers of new jobs for emergency services, medical staff etc.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

I’d urge you to watch the video I linked to…

The one about the trucks? I saw it before.

Not clear what your point is. It certainly doesn’t go against what I am saying.

This one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Yes, I’ve seen that before too, I am a Grey subscriber …

Again, I don’t agree there is a fundamental difference, either in the situation, or in the arguments that are being made.

uber should be banned in Australia

when the taxi drivers took those licences or people invested into them for thousands of dollars they didn’t expect the government would allow someone to come along and just do what they liked and destroy their jobs’

maybe the solution now should be getting rid of these kinds of automation that destroy jobs for no good reason

wookiemeister said:

uber should be banned in Australia

when the taxi drivers took those licences or people invested into them for thousands of dollars they didn’t expect the government would allow someone to come along and just do what they liked and destroy their jobs’

maybe the solution now should be getting rid of these kinds of automation that destroy jobs for no good reason

Right, like the car destroyed hundreds of thousands of horse-lore jobs for no good reaon.

automating everything serves no purpose to human society

i’d ban the automatic mines vehicles as well – we need to employ people

wookiemeister said:

automating everything serves no purpose to human society

i’d ban the automatic mines vehicles as well – we need to employ people

We do employ people. Just not for that.

The technology is easily doable. The impediment is legal and deciding who pays when things go wrong.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

uber should be banned in Australia

when the taxi drivers took those licences or people invested into them for thousands of dollars they didn’t expect the government would allow someone to come along and just do what they liked and destroy their jobs’

maybe the solution now should be getting rid of these kinds of automation that destroy jobs for no good reason

Right, like the car destroyed hundreds of thousands of horse-lore jobs for no good reaon.

yes but horses have no rights expect to some oats and water and maybe none in reality

humans are the top species afforded certain rights

automation for automation sake is not productive for human society

automating many processes will not make us any more competitive on the world market

if uber isn’t used its only going to make the economy stronger with all these people employed

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

uber should be banned in Australia

when the taxi drivers took those licences or people invested into them for thousands of dollars they didn’t expect the government would allow someone to come along and just do what they liked and destroy their jobs’

maybe the solution now should be getting rid of these kinds of automation that destroy jobs for no good reason

Right, like the car destroyed hundreds of thousands of horse-lore jobs for no good reaon.

yes but horses have no rights expect to some oats and water and maybe none in reality

wookie, hundreds of thousands of horse-lore jobs FOR HUMANS

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

automating everything serves no purpose to human society

i’d ban the automatic mines vehicles as well – we need to employ people

We do employ people. Just not for that.

that’s a good excuse but mines will use minimum people if they can – pesky unions and laws they want to get round to maximise profits

wookiemeister said:

that’s a good excuse but mines will use minimum people if they can – pesky unions and laws they want to get round to maximise profits

Solution: more rational wealth distribution, and encourage people to take up enjoyable creative activities for their own sake.

automating everything serves no useful economic purpose

if an automated car was driving down the road and 6 potential taxi drivers stepped out what should the car do, kill them to take their jobs or drive itself over a cliff?

Everything should be automated then we can become floating fat people

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

that’s a good excuse but mines will use minimum people if they can – pesky unions and laws they want to get round to maximise profits

Solution: more rational wealth distribution, and encourage people to take up enjoyable creative activities for their own sake.

that wont happen either

we either get rid of money altogether and robots do all the work for nothing or we hold onto the money and get rid of the robots

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

that’s a good excuse but mines will use minimum people if they can – pesky unions and laws they want to get round to maximise profits

Solution: more rational wealth distribution, and encourage people to take up enjoyable creative activities for their own sake.

that wont happen either

we either get rid of money altogether and robots do all the work for nothing or we hold onto the money and get rid of the robots

Cymek said:

Everything should be automated then we can become floating fat people

yes gazing down to earth like gods

Cymek said:

Everything should be automated then we can become floating fat people

We’d have fat-eating nanobots circulating in our bodies, so could eat as much as we like and stay slim.

robots need not apply

in the grand scheme of things we are only in the very first years of computer aided automation.

In reality though tasks that can cause deaths because of human error or deliberate action should be automated to reduce such occurrences

I wonder how soon we’ll see bots that can write fresh jokes.

Imagine if autonomous military drones developed ethics, sci-fi usually portrays AI, robots, cyborgs rising up against humanity but what if they wouldn’t fight for us

Cymek said:

Imagine if autonomous military drones developed ethics, sci-fi usually portrays AI, robots, cyborgs rising up against humanity but what if they wouldn’t fight for us

They might just sit around playing cards waiting for an ethical fight.

Pedestrians should be fitted with portable air bags

cyclists and motor cycles too

small portable system

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

Neophyte said:

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

You can buy one of those right now.

In the future the TV show Whitney will be written by a robot, and another robot will laugh at it, but that will be the hard part.

wookiemeister said:

maybe in the future only bots will inhabit forums , arguing with each other

humans will be down the beach , secure in the knowledge that facebook bot will be fighting for their honour

you’d get updates

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Nice one, wookie!

:)

If a dog runs across the road the driver is supposed to run it down rather than take evasive action. Who is driving the pedestrians?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Pedestrians should be fitted with portable air bags

cyclists and motor cycles too

small portable system

They should learn the rules of the road and keep their eyes on the job.

Neophyte said:

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

Help us all if the ghost of Rodney possesses it for revenge

>In reality though tasks that can cause deaths because of human error or deliberate action should be automated to reduce such occurrences

Vehicle transport has I high ecnonomic status (and related, of social status attributes), it has about it powerful ideological attributes too (freedom to travel places – at speed. And don’t forget show), the vehicle manufacturing (and related sales) industry is massive. The market is massive.

Related, there always is a push to make machines/gadgets human friendly (make of that what you like).

City driving involves high density traffic, regular breaches of safe distances, almost by necessity (insurers etc are unlikely to highlight this).

And there’s motorsport, and notice of any sort of sport involving something with wheels that breaches of safe distances are the norm, part of the entertainment. Sport is a big player of ideological influence.

Beware anything that puts dear ol pedestrian second, or worse. Beware too anything of big-guy’s-speak that makes humans out to be inadequate (inferior to machines and systems), because, for example, given how much traffic(people driving) there is on the roads, truth is humans do a quite good job at the wheel of vehicles on the road.

transition said:

>In reality though tasks that can cause deaths because of human error or deliberate action should be automated to reduce such occurrences

Vehicle transport has I high ecnonomic status (and related, of social status attributes), it has about it powerful ideological attributes too (freedom to travel places – at speed. And don’t forget show), the vehicle manufacturing (and related sales) industry is massive. The market is massive.

Related, there always is a push to make machines/gadgets human friendly (make of that what you like).

City driving involves high density traffic, regular breaches of safe distances, almost by necessity (insurers etc are unlikely to highlight this).

Well now … I should imagine that things would be quite different if all cars were automated

transition said:

>In reality though tasks that can cause deaths because of human error or deliberate action should be automated to reduce such occurrences

Vehicle transport has I high ecnonomic status (and related, of social status attributes), it has about it powerful ideological attributes too (freedom to travel places – at speed. And don’t forget show), the vehicle manufacturing (and related sales) industry is massive. The market is massive.

Related, there always is a push to make machines/gadgets human friendly (make of that what you like).

City driving involves high density traffic, regular breaches of safe distances, almost by necessity (insurers etc are unlikely to highlight this).

And there’s motorsport, and notice of any sort of sport involving something with wheels that breaches of safe distances are the norm, part of the entertainment. Sport is a big player of ideological influence.

Beware anything that puts dear ol pedestrian second, or worse. Beware too anything of big-guy’s-speak that makes humans out to be inadequate (inferior to machines and systems), because, for example, given how much traffic(people driving) there is on the roads, truth is humans do a quite good job at the wheel of vehicles on the road.

Perhaps convicted pissheads, druggies, hoons and the inattentive get driverless cars as they have proven they arent responsible enough to drive

Cymek said:

transition said:

>In reality though tasks that can cause deaths because of human error or deliberate action should be automated to reduce such occurrences

Vehicle transport has I high ecnonomic status (and related, of social status attributes), it has about it powerful ideological attributes too (freedom to travel places – at speed. And don’t forget show), the vehicle manufacturing (and related sales) industry is massive. The market is massive.

Related, there always is a push to make machines/gadgets human friendly (make of that what you like).

City driving involves high density traffic, regular breaches of safe distances, almost by necessity (insurers etc are unlikely to highlight this).

And there’s motorsport, and notice of any sort of sport involving something with wheels that breaches of safe distances are the norm, part of the entertainment. Sport is a big player of ideological influence.

Beware anything that puts dear ol pedestrian second, or worse. Beware too anything of big-guy’s-speak that makes humans out to be inadequate (inferior to machines and systems), because, for example, given how much traffic(people driving) there is on the roads, truth is humans do a quite good job at the wheel of vehicles on the road.

Perhaps convicted pissheads, druggies, hoons and the inattentive get driverless cars as they have proven they arent responsible enough to drive

Might just be cheaper to give them a bus card

>Well now … I should imagine that things would be quite different if all cars were automated

what’s your point

will it ever be all cars

transition said:

>Well now … I should imagine that things would be quite different if all cars were automated

what’s your point

will it ever be all cars

I do not know

Neophyte said:

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

Fully autonomous mowing DeereTango E5

CrazyNeutrino said:

Neophyte said:

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

Fully autonomous mowing DeereTango E5

I remember a ride-on moa was tried in NZ but it didn’t last

transition said:

>Well now … I should imagine that things would be quite different if all cars were automated

what’s your point

will it ever be all cars

I imagine it would be a staged process, ie freeways would allow automated cars to engage auto, maybe allowed by an electronic signal from a road sign. Freeways being a less chaotic environment and already using lane, brake and radar assist technologies. As the technology matures it would be devolved down to more chaotic environments. Busy cities might not allow full automation as in hands off and GPS guidance at all.

AwesomeO said:

The technology is easily doable. The impediment is legal and deciding who pays when things go wrong.

Three developers (Volvo, Mercedes, Google) have already said their companies will take responsibility. (I posted a link earlier.)

CrazyNeutrino said:

Neophyte said:

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

Fully autonomous mowing DeereTango E5

Steampunk Lawn Mower

am I sensin’ a notion that automated cars are somehow in essence meant or destined to replace human drivers of vehicles.

seems a wild leap

Michael V said:

AwesomeO said:

The technology is easily doable. The impediment is legal and deciding who pays when things go wrong.

Three developers (Volvo, Mercedes, Google) have already said their companies will take responsibility. (I posted a link earlier.)

I assume they mean when things are found to be their fault, I cannot see a blanket acceptance of unlimited liability. They will of course try to shift costs away and as always insurance costs will tell the story.

Fully autonomous police drone knocks over New York citizen sparking a row over police drone violence

CrazyNeutrino said:

Fully autonomous police drone knocks over New York citizen sparking a row over police drone violence

Fully autonomous police drone shoots black person

reprogrammed

transition said:

>Well now … I should imagine that things would be quite different if all cars were automated

what’s your point

will it ever be all cars

Very few people in Australia wash their clothes regularly by hand, I’d imagine. Most families here have refrigerators, etc. Plenty of examples where the robot (autonomous machine that does a task) has completely revolutionised the way we do things.

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Neophyte said:

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

Fully autonomous mowing DeereTango E5

I remember a ride-on moa was tried in NZ but it didn’t last

Hahahahahahahaha!

AwesomeO said:

Michael V said:

AwesomeO said:

The technology is easily doable. The impediment is legal and deciding who pays when things go wrong.

Three developers (Volvo, Mercedes, Google) have already said their companies will take responsibility. (I posted a link earlier.)

I assume they mean when things are found to be their fault, I cannot see a blanket acceptance of unlimited liability. They will of course try to shift costs away and as always insurance costs will tell the story.

Yes.

I’d imagine so too.

>Very few people in Australia wash their clothes regularly by hand, I’d imagine. Most families here have refrigerators, etc. Plenty of examples where the robot (autonomous machine that does a task) has completely revolutionised the way we do things.

In fact soaking, and turning clothes in the washing machine (top loader water savers), and extracting clothes from twin tubs is still normal, sweet FA revolution there. Clothes are still clothes, water’s still wet, detergent is still detergent. No washing machine collects the clothes up from around the house, sorts them, or hangs them out to dry(for those that do hang them out). No washing machine robot has revolutionized washing clothes, just while you’re in your driverless wheeled capsule on the road going to work a machine can perform some of the task, you’ll still have to fold them and put them away, because the objective is to have clean clothes in the cupboard.

Refridgerators granted, even the most basic clunkers minus a brain box, have been a great development, though refrigeration’s been around since the universe started expanding.

I am not sure what a complete revolution is, sounds more like an ideological conviction.

transition said:

>Very few people in Australia wash their clothes regularly by hand, I’d imagine. Most families here have refrigerators, etc. Plenty of examples where the robot (autonomous machine that does a task) has completely revolutionised the way we do things.

In fact soaking, and turning clothes in the washing machine (top loader water savers), and extracting clothes from twin tubs is still normal, sweet FA revolution there. Clothes are still clothes, water’s still wet, detergent is still detergent. No washing machine collects the clothes up from around the house, sorts them, or hangs them out to dry(for those that do hang them out). No washing machine robot has revolutionized washing clothes, just while you’re in your driverless wheeled capsule on the road going to work a machine can perform some of the task, you’ll still have to fold them and put them away, because the objective is to have clean clothes in the cupboard.

Refridgerators granted, even the most basic clunkers minus a brain box, have been a great development, though refrigeration’s been around since the universe started expanding.

I am not sure what a complete revolution is, sounds more like an ideological conviction.

Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.

I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

Michael V said:

transition said:

>Very few people in Australia wash their clothes regularly by hand, I’d imagine. Most families here have refrigerators, etc. Plenty of examples where the robot (autonomous machine that does a task) has completely revolutionised the way we do things.

In fact soaking, and turning clothes in the washing machine (top loader water savers), and extracting clothes from twin tubs is still normal, sweet FA revolution there. Clothes are still clothes, water’s still wet, detergent is still detergent. No washing machine collects the clothes up from around the house, sorts them, or hangs them out to dry(for those that do hang them out). No washing machine robot has revolutionized washing clothes, just while you’re in your driverless wheeled capsule on the road going to work a machine can perform some of the task, you’ll still have to fold them and put them away, because the objective is to have clean clothes in the cupboard.

Refridgerators granted, even the most basic clunkers minus a brain box, have been a great development, though refrigeration’s been around since the universe started expanding.

I am not sure what a complete revolution is, sounds more like an ideological conviction.

Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.

I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

absolutely… I know if my grandmother could have had an automatic washing machine she would have used it

the whole point of technology is to improve things not to destroy the economy

I don’t see any point destroying peoples livelihoods by brining in uber or driverless cars

a fire fighting drone wouldn’t take anyones job a actually create mployment

wookiemeister said:

the whole point of technology is to improve things not to destroy the economy

I don’t see any point destroying peoples livelihoods by brining in uber or driverless cars

a fire fighting drone wouldn’t take anyones job a actually create mployment

Technology is blind, it has no point or desire. What you are up against is that automation generally lowers costs, good for a manufacturer and good for a customer so will always be a desired outcome.

I thought it was love that was blind.

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

the whole point of technology is to improve things not to destroy the economy

I don’t see any point destroying peoples livelihoods by brining in uber or driverless cars

a fire fighting drone wouldn’t take anyones job a actually create mployment

Technology is blind, it has no point or desire. What you are up against is that automation generally lowers costs, good for a manufacturer and good for a customer so will always be a desired outcome.

we’ve hit that wall though where the technology will wreck human systems for no other purpose than “efficiency”

by rights all jobs can be done by robots then exactly how shall we earn money? the system will be in chaos.

if we banned driverless cars and uber in Australia , how will this actually make our economy in real terms? it will only make things worse because the driver of economies are humans earning money and taking loans – the new technology shuts it down – no work means you cant take loans.

if woolworths has to employ someone to drive food around in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter,

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Neophyte said:

After the driverless car, the natural next step is surely to develop the driverless ride-on mower……AutoRodney, anyone?

Fully autonomous mowing DeereTango E5

I remember a ride-on moa was tried in NZ but it didn’t last

Tasty

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

If a driverless car saves the life of a pedestrian, who gets the credit?

transition said:

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

Because that is what it is

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

Because that is what it is

Damn, I need a washing machine for my robot collection…wait, I have one. It’s gonna look silly in the library though.

What if a driverless car falls in love with a driverful car?

AwesomeO said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

Because that is what it is

Damn, I need a washing machine for my robot collection…wait, I have one. It’s gonna look silly in the library though.

you could paint eyes on it

>Because that is what it is

No worries. I’m going to upgrade my pencil sharpener.

transition said:

>Because that is what it is

No worries. I’m going to upgrade my pencil sharpener.

mollwollfumble said:

If a driverless car saves the life of a pedestrian, who gets the credit?

the car gets a lifetime years wash once a week?

dv said:

What if a driverless car falls in love with a driverful car?

They go for a drive in the bush

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

Because that is what it is

That would be an interesting discussion. Come up with a definition of robot that includeds a welding robot but not a washing machine or toaster.

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

Because that is what it is

That would be an interesting discussion. Come up with a definition of robot that includeds a welding robot but not a washing machine or toaster.

what about a multi tool robot cable of doing thousands of things

Arts said:

transition said:

>Because that is what it is

No worries. I’m going to upgrade my pencil sharpener.

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

Because that is what it is

That would be an interesting discussion. Come up with a definition of robot that includeds a welding robot but not a washing machine or toaster.

Robots have legs.

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>Complete: the washing robot takes away all the pounding-on-a-rock-by-the-stream backbreaking work.
I know that that robot doesn’t pick up clothes, put them out, bring them in, fold them up and put them away. But it washes clothes remarkably well. And a person (typically a woman in past times) no longer has to do the very labour-intensive part of the process. So, the washing robot’s invention was a revolution.

In fact soaking, in warm water, along with detergent and a little movement does the job, I doubt the pounding them on a rock example is representative of the nearer alternative (resembling what a washing machine does, and more recent ancestors).

Why are you calling a washing machine a robot…

Because that is what it is

That would be an interesting discussion. Come up with a definition of robot that includeds a welding robot but not a washing machine or toaster.

a robot is a machine that is computer programable and capable of automatically carrying out a series of tasks.

maybe I’ll start a new thread on it, on a rainy day.

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

Because that is what it is

That would be an interesting discussion. Come up with a definition of robot that includeds a welding robot but not a washing machine or toaster.

a robot is a machine that is computer programable and capable of automatically carrying out a series of tasks.

so… not the electronic pencil sharpener.

to be clear, I was talking of the complete revolution in clothes washing previous.

transition said:

to be clear, I was talking of the complete revolution in clothes washing previous.

Well obviously it is a far cry from the days when laundry meant several daily hours of hard physical labour.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

Because that is what it is

That would be an interesting discussion. Come up with a definition of robot that includeds a welding robot but not a washing machine or toaster.

Robots have legs.

Some robots have legs but most do not.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

That would be an interesting discussion. Come up with a definition of robot that includeds a welding robot but not a washing machine or toaster.

Robots have legs.

Some robots have legs but most do not.

Mirthbusted.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Robots have legs.

Some robots have legs but most do not.

Mirthbusted.

CTTOI my toaster kind of has legs but welding robots don’t.

1.
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

so that more or less covers even purely clockwork devices performing a function – a clock could be considered a robot of sorts i’d say

>a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically

if what a washing machine does is complex (to resort to comparison for a moment – of human activities), then so is making a cup of coffee.

Appropriate comic out of smbc today
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3915

wookiemeister said:

1.
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

so that more or less covers even purely clockwork devices performing a function – a clock could be considered a robot of sorts i’d say

Robotically counting seconds? You’d be surprised the number of people who grew up having to wind clocks or pull weights, now have no idea about doing just that.

wookiemeister said:

1.
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

so that more or less covers even purely clockwork devices performing a function – a clock could be considered a robot of sorts i’d say

I’ll defy the ability of most people to simply pull a modern watch to bits and actually put it back together. Trained watchmakers find it difficult. How a robot can do it boggles my tiny brain.

In short, robots are making humans less capable.

Self-driving cars may already be obsolete before they get here

In 10 years, there’s no question that driverless systems will be ubiquitous, but self-driving cars will not be, Ian Pearson, a futurologist, told Tech Insider.

“What Google is proposing is obsolete,” Pearson, who is also a fellow at the World Academy for Arts and Science, said. “It doesn’t exist yet, but there isn’t any point in going through that phase.”

more..

CrazyNeutrino said:

Self-driving cars may already be obsolete before they get here

In 10 years, there’s no question that driverless systems will be ubiquitous, but self-driving cars will not be, Ian Pearson, a futurologist, told Tech Insider.

“What Google is proposing is obsolete,” Pearson, who is also a fellow at the World Academy for Arts and Science, said. “It doesn’t exist yet, but there isn’t any point in going through that phase.”

more..

Many companies are banking on having either fully-automated or semi-automated cars ready by 2020. But Pearson said self-driving cars are far too expensive considering in 10 years there will be no point to owning a car.

Seems unlikely

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Self-driving cars may already be obsolete before they get here

In 10 years, there’s no question that driverless systems will be ubiquitous, but self-driving cars will not be, Ian Pearson, a futurologist, told Tech Insider.

“What Google is proposing is obsolete,” Pearson, who is also a fellow at the World Academy for Arts and Science, said. “It doesn’t exist yet, but there isn’t any point in going through that phase.”

more..

Many companies are banking on having either fully-automated or semi-automated cars ready by 2020. But Pearson said self-driving cars are far too expensive considering in 10 years there will be no point to owning a car.

Seems unlikely

10 years is only three model cycles and I am pretty sure the car companies are looking down the barrel at China for one.

to be fair he was referring to non-autonomous vehicles.

He’s possibly underestimating the general public’s addiction to cars.