[OFFICIAL] Discussion for the next new Nissan 400Z Z35?

JARblue

What makes you say that? I am all for the technology doing EVERYTHING as long as I can still drive my own car. But until then, these fuckin people are still in control of huge masses of steel on wheels, and giving them more opportunities to distract themselves is not a good thing.

__________________

ZHighlander

I'm thinking in terms of the initial years of Autopilot, which will involve a lot of trial and error. You know there's going to be a disclaimer that the driver, while under autonomous driving, should still be alert and be prepared to take the wheel at any given time. But many will ignore that and probably play on their phone or even take a nap.

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.

UNKNOWN_370

I'm not gonna be a crash test dummy for a corporation.

https://youtu.be/qQkx-4pFjus


https://www.google.com/amp/s/electre...n-dashcam/amp/

https://youtu.be/6Glf15CiEho

__________________
Favorite Quote.
"I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna Bash Your Face In" Jack Nicholson-"The Shining". 1980

ZHighlander

What I mean is, if someone's completely reliant on the autopilot and is too distracted to do any defensive driving. Yep, we'll see.


Yep, already read the news on those. We've got a loooong ways to go, but like it or not, autonomous driving is in the future.

Jordo!

Autopilot tech is not one I embrace so readily either... here's why:

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.

__________________
Enjoy it. Destroy it.

JARblue

I don't believe autonomous driving (even shitty 1st gen) is going to make this any worse. Defensive driving? That's par for the course already. We'll just have to wait and see.

__________________