ABSURD SPEEDING

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    Only one fatality involving an AUTONOMOUS vehicle according to the NTHSA. The other crashes were the steering wheel control when humans were SUPPOSED to be still holding the wheel but decided the machine could do the driving even though the design was not meant to do that.

    As far as your post about microsoft bugs. These run on ARM processors and don't even use the same language as Microsoft. They're programmed but much more skilled coders than Gates ever hoped to be. Even half assed they'd still drive better than you.
    Maybe that is true of your driving, not mine.

    Guess I will have to watch for you taking everything literally (re: MS). The best code in the world will never match the human brain for situations like this. Driving is far more complex than most people realize. AI is not the answer to everything.

    Look at the 737 Max. Or the Boeing space program. The more they try to take the pilot out of the picture, the more complex the software. And the more bugs cause problems. Talk to fighter pilots who have jockeyed the software heavy birds.

    When the code reaches a massive number of lines, it really cannot be verified. How do companies try to verify it? Using software...
    Texas SOT
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,489
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    First, your single fatality statistic is wrong. Second, your statistically better driver claim is flawed at best when the technology is still relying on a human to bail its ass out. Pretty tough to claim it's "better" when the system basically says "Oh shit I don't know what to do, please take the wheel human!" These cars hit shit all the time. Mistaking a panel van for a cloud and plowing right into it at full clip. Not able to decide which side of a freeway fork to take, so it takes the crash barrier in the middle. Apparently getting bored in a line of cars waiting at a toll plaza, so it goes full throttle into the car in front of it. Driving off the freeway, blowing a red light and killing a couple people in a Honda, because reasons. Slamming into a parked firetruck and killing the passenger in the car, which makes sense because fire trucks are tiny and hard to see. Sure they're getting better the more we work on them, but to say they're currently better than the best human drivers is simply not true. Better than those people driving with their nose buried in their cell phone? Maybe.

    So then ... What can AI do better than humans? Follow directions. Work cooperatively with other AI following the same directions. That's about it. AI is mediocre at best for dealing with uncertainties. At best they assign confidence metrics to available data and follow a truth table to "decide" what to do. Humans have something AI has yet to replicate - intuition. When driving, people who are paying attention are using that to predict uncertainty. We try to 'teach' the AI to do the same things, but it can only fall back on the assumptions and confidence metrics. Humans are better than AI at image classification, pattern recognition, correlations, etc. So, to finally answer your question on speed, the only way the world will ever get to the point speed limits can be eliminated in the legal sense is if ALL driving is AI controlled. The plebeians of the world are obviously openly excited about this - they don't want to drive, they don't like to drive, and they'd much rather let someone/something take over that task while they watch Tik Toks and play Candy Crush on their phones.

    Post the NTSHA reports showing a fully automated car killed someone besides that person with a bicycle in Arizona. Go ahead. Post them. NTSHA reports.. from the site.. the official report.
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,489
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    Maybe that is true of your driving, not mine.

    Guess I will have to watch for you taking everything literally (re: MS). The best code in the world will never match the human brain for situations like this. Driving is far more complex than most people realize. AI is not the answer to everything.

    Look at the 737 Max. Or the Boeing space program. The more they try to take the pilot out of the picture, the more complex the software. And the more bugs cause problems. Talk to fighter pilots who have jockeyed the software heavy birds.

    When the code reaches a massive number of lines, it really cannot be verified. How do companies try to verify it? Using software...

    The 737 max example is a shitty one, because the MAX did it's job but poorly trained pilots in 3rd world countries freaked out when the automation did what it's supposed to do, tried to take the craft over when they shouldn't have and it caused a catastrophe. Boeing is a crappy space program. Try Space X we have a guy here that works at Space X and they automate a HELL of a lot.
     

    craigntx

    Masta Copypasta
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jun 25, 2010
    3,258
    96
    Cypress, Tejas
    Make a game of it. Watch the rear view. If you see someone weaving in and out jam em up. Hopefully you can see them blow a gasket.
    Feels good man
    1608160412501.png
     

    Brains

    One of the idiots
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 9, 2013
    6,904
    96
    Spring
    Post the NTSHA reports showing a fully automated car killed someone besides that person with a bicycle in Arizona. Go ahead. Post them. NTSHA reports.. from the site.. the official report.
    Lol. You sound just like that HK guy did. If you feel the need to look them up, you go right ahead.

    The 737 max example is a shitty one, because the MAX did it's job but poorly trained pilots in 3rd world countries freaked out when the automation did what it's supposed to do, tried to take the craft over when they shouldn't have and it caused a catastrophe. Boeing is a crappy space program. Try Space X we have a guy here that works at Space X and they automate a HELL of a lot.
    *facepalm*

    Did you miss the part where Boeing went on record admitting to the flaw that caused the automation to fly the plane into the ground?

    Wow, head in the sand, this guy.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    The 737 max example is a shitty one, because the MAX did it's job but poorly trained pilots in 3rd world countries freaked out when the automation did what it's supposed to do, tried to take the craft over when they shouldn't have and it caused a catastrophe. Boeing is a crappy space program. Try Space X we have a guy here that works at Space X and they automate a HELL of a lot.
    If you read in more detail about ALL of the 737MAX software issues, you would find otherwise.

    SpaceX has had its issues as well.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    Lol. You sound just like that HK guy did. If you feel the need to look them up, you go right ahead.


    *facepalm*

    Did you miss the part where Boeing went on record admitting to the flaw that caused the automation to fly the plane into the ground?

    Wow, head in the sand, this guy.
    I did my first programming when programs were stored on paper tape. Worked with/around computers ever since. Software is no smarter than the person writing the code.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,611
    96
    hill co.
    Interesting arguments for/against automated cars.


    While I doubt anyone can argue that a computer is nowhere near sophisticated enough to compete with a human brain, the human brain has a bad habit of finding its storage container firmly inserted insides the human rectum. So I have to agree that humans can drive better than a computer...but I don’t know if I can say that they actually do.

    I was listening to a comedian a while back who said the best way to make people drive better was to replace airbags with big metal spikes sticking out of the steering wheel.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Tex62

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 21, 2014
    725
    76
    I haven’t read this whole thread. Automated cars nothing more than the nanny state wanting to control. It will also price cars out of the budget of a lot of low income folks.

    Also, y’all advocating for crazy speeds in the left lane in construction zones, bite it. If you are not concerned about others safety then you should not be driving.

    Flame away. I am pissed off today.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Not familiar with that particular hwy, but it sounds like you were in the passing lane and using it to cruise.

    No, the actual highway was closed and we were on a temporary side roadway with lanes variable, from one to three north-east bound. The slower traffic was on the right lanes. I pulled over as soon as possible, was doing 82 in a 55 when several passed "ZIP!". Had I been causing the problem, I wouldn't have posted here !

    leVieux
     

    mongoose

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    1,289
    96
    nm
    Lol. You sound just like that HK guy did. If you feel the need to look them up, you go right ahead.


    *facepalm*

    Did you miss the part where Boeing went on record admitting to the flaw that caused the automation to fly the plane into the ground?

    Wow, head in the sand, this guy.
    My BIL Captained the 737 Max until it was taken out of service. He says there is nothing wrong with the plane, you just have to stay ahead of it.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    My BIL Captained the 737 Max until it was taken out of service. He says there is nothing wrong with the plane, you just have to stay ahead of it.
    I would think you would want to stay in it. {With credit to George Carlin}
     

    Brains

    One of the idiots
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 9, 2013
    6,904
    96
    Spring
    My BIL Captained the 737 Max until it was taken out of service. He says there is nothing wrong with the plane, you just have to stay ahead of it.
    I've never flown one, but from what I gathered learning about this over the past year or so, your BIL is exactly right - with caveats. There were multiple contributing factors to whether or not the flaw would result in a crash. Similar to the flaws in Toyota's throttle-by-wire system, it worked great right up to the point it worked very, very wrong. I'm probably a bit wrong on the exact details because I'm going from memory here, but the gist of it was the automation had the ability to inhibit the pilot unless specific actions were taken. So while the crashes most certainly could have been avoided were certain procedures followed, in those moments the pilots likely were in panic mode and reverting to their 'core skills' so to speak. The plane itself as I understood was never deemed unsafe, if that specific failure of the automation were not in play.

    The net result of the flaw was the plane would trim itself down, believing it was nose up and either in a stall or about to be. The amount of trim "correction" would exceed the amount of pilot input, so the plane couldn't climb out of it. The flaws were both in software and hardware. Software not allowing the pilot to use the stick to bring the nose up without first disengaging the automation, and hardware in that no redundancy was provided in the sensor input. Well, for some carriers anyway, apparently you COULD have multiple angle of attack sensors but it was a costly upgrade. Further, those sensors apparently were flawed in some way where they would 'stick' or something, whatever the case not indicating the true angle.

    FWIW the flaw in Toyota's software was the ECU had a corner case where a correlation error in the pedal position sensors would cause the ECU to command 100% throttle and stay there, ignoring any further input from the driver. While the driver could still have simply pressed+held the engine start/stop button long enough to kill the engine, or could have shifted into neutral, some people instead panicked. In one case that hit the news the driver burned through their brakes attempting to stop the car, resulting in a runaway condition that ended fatally. Some auto manufacturers responded by adding a brake override to their ECU software, where brake application will force a reduction of throttle angle.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    ... MAX did it's job but poorly trained pilots in 3rd world countries freaked out when the automation did what it's supposed to do...
    MCAS in both birds activated due to faulty sensors with no logic to perform fault checking because there was only a single input channel despite multiple vanes being available to provide input for redundancy, cross/fault checking, and failure mode detection/ fail to off.

    Contributing factors include Boeing’s lack of documentation in systems, training, and operational manuals and procedures as well as pilot experience (or lack thereof) and rigor in airline training programs.

    ....Did you miss the part where Boeing went on record admitting to the flaw that caused the automation to fly the plane into the ground?
    The flaw was a shitty system design and lack of documentation necessary to identify and counter/mitigate MCAS failure modes. Systemically, Boeing failed in their designated engineering approval authority and the FAA intentionally chose not to trust but verify in their oversight of the delegated authorities.

    My BIL Captained the 737 Max until it was taken out of service. He says there is nothing wrong with the plane, you just have to stay ahead of it.
    True with every single aircraft from the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle. Without exception, the US have the single most rigorous and comprehensive pilot qualification requirements in the world, yet pilot error is, and always has been, a contributing or causal factor is nearly 100% of all aviation incidents and accidents.
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,489
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    MCAS in both birds activated due to faulty sensors with no logic to perform fault checking because there was only a single input channel despite multiple vanes being available to provide input for redundancy, cross/fault checking, and failure mode detection/ fail to off.

    Contributing factors include Boeing’s lack of documentation in systems, training, and operational manuals and procedures as well as pilot experience (or lack thereof) and rigor in airline training programs.


    The flaw was a shitty system design and lack of documentation necessary to identify and counter/mitigate MCAS failure modes. Systemically, Boeing failed in their designated engineering approval authority and the FAA intentionally chose not to trust but verify in their oversight of the delegated authorities.


    True with every single aircraft from the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle. Without exception, the US have the single most rigorous and comprehensive pilot qualification requirements in the world, yet pilot error is, and always has been, a contributing or causal factor is nearly 100% of all aviation incidents and accidents.

    Man is more fallible than machine? Say it ain't so Todd.
     

    Aus_Schwaben

    First to know - Last to care!
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 31, 2019
    3,760
    96
    Abilene, TX
    I still do that. I learned it in Driver's Ed and it's stuck with me for over 40 years.
    That is interesting because when I moved back to Texas and had to do the drivers ed class for dismissing a ticket, both instructors (one retired DPS) advised against driving on the shoulder to enable faster drivers to pass. I asked my dad (retired HPD and the person I learned to do that from) about it at the time and he told me to stop doing it as it had become unsafe.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Man is more fallible than machine? Say it ain't so Todd.
    Right? Even with the best AI, trolley problem still exists and is influenced by human input throughout.

    Ethics in automation is an interesting subject; perfection is expected yet the more complex the equations are to achieve that, the likelihood of not achieving perfection go down.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    it had become unsafe
    I agree, much of the time. I note that with the development of rural lands, the roads with long, uninterrupted shoulders that make this kind of courtesy possible are becoming more rare.

    As an example, 40 years ago on 80% (or more) of 90 between Hondo and San Antonio, allowing this type of pass was easy. Anybody from that area want to comment on just how little of that road such passing is now possible?

    Another thing that makes it dangerous is that lots of people don't understand what you're doing. If you move over, they don't realize they're supposed to hit the go pedal and get on past. That sort of situation can get awkward quickly.

    I learn new things on TGT all the time and this is one of them. I'm re-evaluating this driving practice in my head and I'll probably come out the other side of the thought process with modifications to it, all due to the well-considered input of members in this thread.
     
    Top Bottom