View 25 more replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@Northwest So you are referring to the post and not this guy's statement! 🤣
Not even your own statement.
Not even your own statement.
eMortal · M
All this will need 10x more compute than what is currently used in AVs, better proximity sensors and state of the art computer vision models.
All this will need 10x more compute than what is currently used in AVs, better proximity sensors and state of the art computer vision models.
Northwest · M
@DeWayfarer Jesus fucking christ, you're stuck in a bad feedback loop. That IS NOT my statement. That is someone else's statement.
And not the first time you do this. Goodbye man.
And not the first time you do this. Goodbye man.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@Northwest All that matters to this threads conversation is the initial comment!
Not the post, not other threads, not your own comment!
That is all I am talking about. Anything else is irrelevant to this conversation. Because it just hasn't been mentioned until you just interjected that AI submitted question.
Not the post, not other threads, not your own comment!
That is all I am talking about. Anything else is irrelevant to this conversation. Because it just hasn't been mentioned until you just interjected that AI submitted question.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Wrong approach. And if you knew anything about programming, you would say so there as well.
There is several little used thought processes use in programming AI that could be better utilized.
Heck even AI has recommended them. The problem there is they are afraid to do so. Which is a truly debatable topic.
Do we, listen to them, and let them out grow us or not? 🤷🏻♂
BTW your thinking is cyclical. That is where you are going wrong. Of course you can't make endless tests in a cyclical process. Dump the cycle. Make it based on events. Events don't happen every cycle.
There is several little used thought processes use in programming AI that could be better utilized.
Heck even AI has recommended them. The problem there is they are afraid to do so. Which is a truly debatable topic.
Do we, listen to them, and let them out grow us or not? 🤷🏻♂
BTW your thinking is cyclical. That is where you are going wrong. Of course you can't make endless tests in a cyclical process. Dump the cycle. Make it based on events. Events don't happen every cycle.
helenoftroy2000 · 22-25, F
Vampyre · 51-55
@helenoftroy2000 yes it is, however if the vehicle can orchestrate a path of heavy resistance, (even 35 mph will kill), and inadvertently cause it's own destruction, then the unavoidable impact can be lessened to a minor injury over hitting anyone straight on.
It should not be programmed to save only one person... But to protect every human.
It should not be programmed to save only one person... But to protect every human.
Northwest · M
@helenoftroy2000 Looks like we're dealing with a bot here.
helenoftroy2000 · 22-25, F
@Northwest this site can't afford bots
Vampyre · 51-55
@Northwest I was recently asked a very specific question that led me to this dissertation.
If an autonomous vehicle determines an imenent danger without any possibility to avoid crashing into a person, with 3 people of varios ages, races and wealth, jumping immediately into the path... Which should the vehicle sacrifice?
If an autonomous vehicle determines an imenent danger without any possibility to avoid crashing into a person, with 3 people of varios ages, races and wealth, jumping immediately into the path... Which should the vehicle sacrifice?
Northwest · M
@Vampyre
And amazingly, you decided that the 50,000 word salad presented the problem more succinctly?
If an autonomous vehicle determines an imenent danger without any possibility to avoid crashing into a person, with 3 people of varios ages, races and wealth, jumping immediately into the path... Which should the vehicle sacrifice?
And amazingly, you decided that the 50,000 word salad presented the problem more succinctly?
