Uber v Taxis
-
@Kirwan said in Uber v Taxis:
@Hooroo said in Uber v Taxis:
I do wonder how it allows for road works and the adjusted speed limits. Every now and then I will see works and they with have 30kph on one side of road and 50kph on the other in error.
I totally rammed up the back of if when it stopped for those runners on the footpath.
Software reads road signs.
Also: use Google Maps to run a route and you'll see where it has roadworks noted. It is constantly feeding data about changed traffic conditions, which you get as part of the estimated time of travel.
-
-
@Crucial said in Uber v Taxis:
None of those examples show the critical need to slow down slightly to get a better look at the hot chick out for a jog.
Put that in your AI and you have a winner.
The car is fucking loaded with cameras. So you can take that vision home.
-
Just reading about a Tesla Model X in the Netherlands which predicted a crash ahead of the vehicle nearly a second before it happened.
Article with the deets is here BUT it has some dodgy "YOU JUST WON!" links on it:
Tesla Autopilot's new radar technology predicts an accident caught on dashcam a second later
Just a few weeks ago, we published a report about how Tesla’s new radar technology for the Autopilot is already...
So if you don't want that stupid shit, here is the short version of the video recorded from the owner's TV playback of dashcam, by the looks:
Note the beeping just before impact. The new update to the Tesla software allows the radar to look beyond the vehicle in front. In this case probably saw the sudden deceleration of the black car before the purple car did, as he was looking to change lanes.
-
Moral Machine
A platform for public participation in and discussion of the human perspective on machine-made moral decisions
Who are you going to kill?
-
@dK said in Uber v Taxis:
A platform for public participation in and discussion of the human perspective on machine-made moral decisions
Who are you going to kill?
I thought that was really rubbish as not once did I look at gender or age or 'fitness' of victims, yet a lot of the results showed what I chose even though the thought process left Gender etc out
-
@dK said in Uber v Taxis:
A platform for public participation in and discussion of the human perspective on machine-made moral decisions
Who are you going to kill?
Ha! DIE KITTY DIE!!!
-
@dK said in Uber v Taxis:
A platform for public participation in and discussion of the human perspective on machine-made moral decisions
Who are you going to kill?
Those breaking the law < Animals < Numbers game < Those in the car < Pedestrians.
-
-
@dK said in Uber v Taxis:
A platform for public participation in and discussion of the human perspective on machine-made moral decisions
Who are you going to kill?
Lost it when I saw the kitty driving the car.
-
This was really stupid as it assumed you were doing a Sherlock type deduction of the situation including checking the cross signal and body shapes of potential victims as well as being judge and jury on an alleged criminal act. This was all while you had just discovered that not only had some fuck-knuckle put a solid barrier in the middle of the road but your brakes had failed.
Basically you should be taking the hit in all scenarios as no bystander at all deserves punishment of death because your vehicle is faulty. You and your passengers accepted a risk when you started driving. -
@NTA said in Uber v Taxis:
The safety of the car should save occupants in almost every case. So I always took the crash barrier where offered.
but it was showing that it would be death to occupants of car if that scenario was taken. That why you had to decide on who dies
