• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Driverless car speeds away from cops at traffic stop

Court Jester said:
Yes, plenty.


But you are making my point here. The horse has a brain and coupled with training and experience, it understands the problems faster than I'll bet a computer could. The horses brain, and the muscle memory, coupled with thousands of years of evolution and way it all comes together with those hooves coming down on uneven ground, is absolutely a thing of nature's brilliance. Add an experienced rider to that, and now we are talking about many millions of instant computations.


A transmission is just gears. I prefer standard transmissions, and an automatic for certain vehicles is dumbed down. But a vehicle transmission is not a good comparison to a horse. Most cars are automatic transmissions today as a result of generations now of people who were never forced to drive a manual transmission. I know 30-40 year old men today who cannot drive a stick shift. Pretty sad state of affairs I would say.

Nothing compares to driving a vehicle with standard transmission on wet, muddy, or snow covered roads, and then having the feel of the engine, the throttle, the brakes, and the rubber all so well as to achieve the best possible traction and control without some computer doing that for you. Because what happens when the computer fails? How will you "pilot" that vehicle correctly unless just like learning to control that horse, or that motorcycle, or that fighter jet, you haven't mastered all the skills. And BTW, nobody ever masters anything who hasn't learned in the most adverse conditions over a period of time. All AI hopes to do is eliminate human skills sets. It will certainly help a bad driver, but it will never make a bad driver a great driver.
Click to expand...
Obvious you have no clue what Ai is capable of if you think that a horse is faster. Which means this is just you venting opinions not based on reality.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Obvious you have no clue what Ai is capable of if you think that a horse is faster. Which means this is just you venting opinions not based on reality.
Click to expand...
Obviously you aren't paying attention what I am posting. What I am saying is that AI is not smarter than nature.
 
Court Jester said:
Obviously you aren't paying attention what I am posting. What I am saying is that AI is not smarter than nature.
Click to expand...
That's a bold claim let's see the evidence. Ever play chess? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/feb/12/deep-blue-computer-beats-kasparov-chess-1996#:~:text=Machine triumphed over man as,prevailed in a traditional tournament.

"Machine triumphed over man as Deep Blue, an IBM computer which has “no fear”, shredded Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, in Philadelphia at the weekend. It is the first time a computer has prevailed in a traditional tournament."
 
FreedomFromAll said:
That's a bold claim let's see the evidence. Ever play chess? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/feb/12/deep-blue-computer-beats-kasparov-chess-1996#:~:text=Machine triumphed over man as,prevailed in a traditional tournament.

"Machine triumphed over man as Deep Blue, an IBM computer which has “no fear”, shredded Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, in Philadelphia at the weekend. It is the first time a computer has prevailed in a traditional tournament."
Click to expand...

Chess is an abstract strategy game with fixed rules. Despite there being thousands of possible movements, none of them are required to happen quickly in adverse and/or changing conditions, which may have life or death consequences. So, once again you are missing the mark on this conversation.

AI driverless cars are not chess boards.
 
Court Jester said:
Chess is an abstract strategy game with fixed rules. Despite there being thousands of possible movements, none of them are required to happen quickly in adverse and/or changing conditions, which may have life or death consequences. So, once again you are missing the mark on this conversation.

AI driverless cars are not chess boards.
Click to expand...
Your dogmatic beliefs are irrelevant.
 
Chomsky said:
I suspect the initial autonomous vehicles may be 'self-insured'.
Click to expand...
That's kind of scary. I mean years ago in TN you could put up your own bond( $50k ) with the State and avoid having to carry liability insurance on an auto.

We know GM has spun-off it's driverless car division into a separate shell corporation, I just wonder how much of that is to limit GM's liability. I mean it would suck if $5k to a bond agency is allowing these cars to drive( beta test ) on our public roads. Some serious accident and the issuer of the bond maybe out $45k, meanwhile GM's shell corp. declares bankruptcy to avoid any fiscal responsibility or liabilities over the $50k, such as wrongful death lawsuits.
 
nvflash said:
That's kind of scary. I mean years ago in TN you could put up your own bond( $50k ) with the State and avoid having to carry liability insurance on an auto.

We know GM has spun-off it's driverless car division into a separate shell corporation, I just wonder how much of that is to limit GM's liability. I mean it would suck if $5k to a bond agency is allowing these cars to drive( beta test ) on our public roads. Some serious accident and the issuer of the bond maybe out $45k, meanwhile GM's shell corp. declares bankruptcy to avoid any fiscal responsibility or liabilities over the $50k, such as wrongful death lawsuits.
Click to expand...

It's very common for major corporations to self-insure, for what it's worth.
 
Chomsky said:
It's very common for major corporations to self-insure, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...
I never really thought about it, and I'm fine with that as long as they have sufficient holding to back it up, but the whole point of a corporation in some sense it to limit liabilities. I just hate to see people get screwed when a large lawsuit gets judged and the corporation just turns right around and files for bankruptcy to avoid just payment.

A lot of people don't understand how outdated some of our laws are, and how legislators that rely on cooperate funding of their campaigns allow our laws to be outdated. People don't understand about senior debt holders, those that get made whole first when a corporation files for bankruptcy "protections".
 
Court Jester said:
Like I said, the human brain is capable of making many more calculations than a computer AND at the same time applying HUMANITY to those calculations which a machine can never make. A machine may make a best decision for MOST situations, it may even do so quickly enough to save from a collision. But it cannot make the kinks of "Captain Sully" decisions which seemingly go against it's programming, and weigh a different measure of human risk vs reward in a way which takes into account factors a machine will NEVER be able to evaluate.

I believe strongly that while driver assist is a good idea in car technology, making the car fully in control is NOT a good idea.
Click to expand...
You speak a lot of confidence to the assumption that people have the same values as you and therefore would execute the same decisions.

I - for one - can easily imagine the type of person who would choose to hit a person over a dog. I am also aware of the type of person who intentionally drive cars into crowds.
 
nvflash said:
I never really thought about it, and I'm fine with that as long as they have sufficient holding to back it up, but the whole point of a corporation in some sense it to limit liabilities. I just hate to see people get screwed when a large lawsuit gets judged and the corporation just turns right around and files for bankruptcy to avoid just payment.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's extremely common, so common as to be S.O.P.

nvflash said:
A lot of people don't understand how outdated some of our laws are, and how legislators that rely on cooperate funding of their campaigns allow our laws to be outdated. People don't understand about senior debt holders, those that get made whole first when a corporation files for bankruptcy "protections".
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There used to be an old expression, often attributed to Wise-guys back in the mid 20th century:

"The working man's a sucker!"

I hate to say it, not attempting to disparage the dignity of those who toil for others, but there is some truth in that despite the derogatory delivery.

Unless one can hook into government union employment with great benefits, and especially - a guaranteed solid pension, I highly recommend one consider working for themselves, and avail themselves of the various legal entities and tax strategies available to those that are not wage-earners.

Unfortunately it's the way of the land: Wage earners have few methods to legally protect their income, whereas those that form corps and other legal entities have a plethora of legal strategies to keep more of what they earn.

You don't have to have a business with employees, to form these entities and take advantage of them. But then again, it never hurts to have others working for your contributing to your largesse!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom