Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Discussion Starter #1


"Cruise (GM's Automation subsidiary) just unveiled its third-generation autonomous prototype, and it claims this version is ready for mass production. [This] new version has enough redundancies and safety features that Cruise feels it could operate in the real world without a driver, unrestricted.

These self-driving cars can still be built on the same Michigan [Bolt] assembly line–meaning that, in theory, GM could crank out thousands of them if they wanted to. That puts GM ahead of most of their rivals."



GM plans to offer retrofit kits to existing Bolt owners who may want their cars to "earn their keep" when not being used for personal transportation.

(OK, the line above I made up :p)



Details here, here, and here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
I'm skeptical about being completely driverless right now because there are so many factors that can impact it like what we seen with Tesla. Although it wasn't 100% driverless it did show how this tech can be faulty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
There are those drivers who will NEVER see the utility of an EV. There are drivers who NEVER use cruise control. There are drivers (EV & ICE) who will never use a "lane assist" or a "lane departure" feature. There are many EV owners who do not see "full automation" as THEIR goal, but rather the incorporation of a portion of those features (which make "fully automated" driving possible) which make "partially-automated" driving safer. Until ALL drivers drive safely (don't hold your breath) we are simply developing many layers of redundancy to account for (counteract) the idiotic actions of idiotic "other" drivers. In many states, wearing a helmet on Fridays and Saturdays after 10 pm is one of the better "safety achieving" things you can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,486 Posts
For a second I really fell for the retrofit bit..well played sir, well played.

Full automation won't really happen until it's mandatory for all cars to be equipped with it, the system may work flawlessly, but the driver with the outdated car may decide to plow into you anyways and the system may not react in time. The most I can see myself using is the active cruise control on highways.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,564 Posts
Whatever it takes to put more people out of work and increase profits for the few... that seems to be the goal. As AIs, and robots become more sophisticated and wide spread, it's going to become a scary world when we have large numbers of people sitting around with nothing to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
Whatever it takes to put more people out of work and increase profits for the few... that seems to be the goal.
Not that humans have some great safety record to fall back on.... pretty much every recent train derailment and/or train accident has been caused by human error. Probably true for semi tractor trailers too.

Look at yesterday's charter bus crash in NYC yesterday ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/nyregion/bus-crash-queens.html?mcubz=0) in which three people died...
The charter bus driver had been fired from the MTA for DUI two years ago after crashing his own car in CT.
He was clocked at 2x the 30mph speed limit as he ran the red light that resulted in the bus crash killing himself and two others.

So you have a driver with a DUI on his record driving a charter bus at 60mph in a 30mph zone while running a red light!
How does it get worse than that?

Humans are making a great case for Autonomous vehicles every single day!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Whatever it takes to put more people out of work and increase profits for the few... that seems to be the goal. As AIs, and robots become more sophisticated and wide spread, it's going to become a scary world when we have large numbers of people sitting around with nothing to do.
Maybe we can put all those people who lost work fixing cars which were in crashes into repairing the systems which malfunction (I mean, other than unplug and reboot)!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Whatever it takes to put more people out of work and increase profits for the few... it's going to become a scary world when we have large numbers of people sitting around with nothing to do.
Excluding the Amish, it is us consumers that are to blame for this moral dilemma. Our fetish, nay, addiction to anything tech - for the sake of tech - drives the automation industrial engine. The PC I'm typing on, the ATM, online communications and e-commerce, Self-Service (French for NO-Service) gas stations, and thousands of other automation examples that we all use daily have replaced human labor.

The upside of autonomous vehicles should be less accidents, injury, and fatalities. But this view ignores new threats. Multi-Billion dollar corporations, Governments, and other organizations can not keep the data on their networks safe from evil doers. Imagine 100's of autonomous tanker trucks hauling highly combustible and toxic chemicals, and the system that controls them has been hacked?

Given the financial rewards of being first to market, in an ostensibly free-market society, it is problematic to allow the industry to police itself when it comes to mitigating potential unintended consequences of its products. Any philosophical discussion regarding robot (Automation) morality is moot now, as the tech genie has long been out of the bottle. Like Climate Change, the automating out of basic human dignity is pretty much locked and loaded; It's gonna happen.

For a second I really fell for the retrofit bit..well played sir, well played.
With the above stated, I would imagine a great first-mover advantage would be to actually retrofit one's own Bolt. Have it drive you to work, and while you're at work, it goes about - on it's own - and earns additional revenue while part of the Lyft rideshare system. Your Bolt then comes to pick you up from work after it clocks out from Lyft. On the drive home you can check your online bank account to see what daily income was generated.

Might as well get with the AI program early on. Especially considering this AI Bolt is based on the vehicle many here are driving now.

MIT has a website that is dedicated to the moral decisions that AI enabled Bots like the Bolt above need to make on their own in real-time. It allows humans to put themselves in AI life & death scenarios:
Moral Machine - Human Perspectives on Machine Ethics
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,564 Posts
Excluding the Amish, it is us consumers that are to blame for this moral dilemma. Our fetish, nay, addiction to anything tech - for the sake of tech - drives the automation industrial engine. The PC I'm typing on, the ATM, online communications and e-commerce, Self-Service (French for NO-Service) gas stations, and thousands of other automation examples that we all use daily have replaced human labor...

... Any philosophical discussion regarding robot (Automation) morality is moot now, as the tech genie has long been out of the bottle. Like Climate Change, the automating out of basic human dignity is pretty much locked and loaded; It's gonna happen.
Agree with most of what you have written. The American consumer and the American investor more than anyone has driven this drive towards total automation. The genie is out of the bottle and much like human cloning, it will happen sooner rather than later. Much like atomic weapons, people that shouldn't have them will have them. Artificial intelligence likely will cause much chaos, but it's coming like it or not. Much like every invention man has ever made, there will be unintended consequences and in the case of robotics and AI, these consequences could be huge.

Where I disagree is that there is the idea that there is nothing we can do about it and we might as well all just get onboard for the ride wherever it goes. Life is and always has been about choices. Just because we can, does not mean we should, or we have to. We can choose to not do things.

Examples of this lay in India and China. These are two countries with massive, growing populations. Populations that can be a real problem. India for over a century has chosen a path to not automate and bring technology to their work force whenever possible. They have done this because they know that large numbers of people out of work with nothing to do ends very, very badly. They have chosen to farm the old fashion way, they have chosen to make things by hand the old fashion way and in doing so they have kept people busy. They have managed stability so far.

China in a way has done the same. While they have shifted from agriculture to manufacturing, a tour of a Chinese factory will show that it is far out of date with an American, or European factory. Operations there in China are much still done by hand. Whether this is due to economics of cheap manual labor, or public policy is not clear, but the net result is, people are kept busy and have jobs. China is for the most part stable.

There is a rapidly approaching point in our history where we will have to decide, do we want to get rid of all the jobs, or not? Do we really want a computer that can process information many times faster than we can make decisions on it's own that effect our lives? I believe we can chose to be judicious and not always do a thing just because we need to be first to do it and it can be done.

Just my thoughts and they are only worth the bits and bites they are written with. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
^ I agree- you have to pick and choose where you want to apply the new tech, but in areas with so many recent and horrific accidents like the railroads how would automation hurt?
Have the robot control the train, keep the motorman there as the backup for the robot just in case.
At least robots don't have sleep apnea like the motormen had had in the last two (and possibly a third) train accidents in NY/NJ.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2017/01/06/brooklyn-train-accident-sleep-apnea-again/96242700/

Edit- the NTSB just released a statement an hour ago: in two of the recent train crashes in the NYC area the motormen had severe sleep apnea.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/article174556261.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Whatever it takes to put more people out of work and increase profits for the few... that seems to be the goal. As AIs, and robots become more sophisticated and wide spread, it's going to become a scary world when we have large numbers of people sitting around with nothing to do.
What, are you kidding? The people are going to be taking pot shots at the cars and awarding point for which type of sensor you took out. Me? I can't wait to bag me an Amazon drone, package and all the trimmings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
Whatever it takes to put more people out of work and increase profits for the few... that seems to be the goal. As AIs, and robots become more sophisticated and wide spread, it's going to become a scary world when we have large numbers of people sitting around with nothing to do.
What are you babbling about? Automation frees us to do much more important work than mundane tasks like driving. The only people who will be out of work are those who are too lazy to learn calculus, the rest of us will be designing O'Neill cylinders and NTP rocket engines (with AI assistance) as we begin to populate the rest of the solar system. Freeing us from mundane chores is the only way we'll have sufficient human resources to do the immense amount of design and planning necessary to move into interplanetary space.

What we don't need are brainless buffoons like musk building rubbish and fraudulently claiming it is autonomous driving and giving autonomy a poor reputation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,777 Posts
The Luddites might be wrong about efficiency and automation making us all poor, because that's not what technology does. The poorest among us are way wealthier than they otherwise would have been back when simpler technology existed. That said, they still have a point about technology eliminating work for an ever increasing portion of the population.

There's a certain percent of people that have nothing valuable enough to contribute that a job would exist for them, and that portion of the population gets larger as automation and technology gets more sophisticated. It's usually not a problem that can be solved by educating these people, as those at the lower end of the IQ spectrum (for instance) get left behind.

The problem isn't so much that technology will impoverish people financially, as their needs will continue to be met at higher and higher standards of living, but that it will leave them with nothing to contribute, which is an even greater form of poverty. Being a valuable member of society is incredibly important to mental well-being, and engaging those that can no longer find a suitable job is a huge problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
The Luddites might be wrong about efficiency and automation making us all poor, because that's not what technology does. The poorest among us are way wealthier than they otherwise would have been back when simpler technology existed. That said, they still have a point about technology eliminating work for an ever increasing portion of the population.

There's a certain percent of people that have nothing valuable enough to contribute that a job would exist for them, and that portion of the population gets larger as automation and technology gets more sophisticated. It's usually not a problem that can be solved by educating these people, as those at the lower end of the IQ spectrum (for instance) get left behind.

The problem isn't so much that technology will impoverish people financially, as their needs will continue to be met at higher and higher standards of living, but that it will leave them with nothing to contribute, which is an even greater form of poverty. Being a valuable member of society is incredibly important to mental well-being, and engaging those that can no longer find a suitable job is a huge problem.
I do agree that feeling useful is important, but j think you massively underestimate the capacity of the average human being. The average person is far smarter than the very best AI. They are far better at general understanding and a 100 IQ can learn sufficient mathematics to contribute meaningfully within a highly technological civilization for many tasks for which AI is a poor fit.

The biggest problem is the bigotry of low expectations. Many studies have shown the most significant characteristic in determining human efficacy is *moxy* (or grit) and that is a learned behavior (ask any Marine core drill instructor whether they can teach grit).

The real question is whether we are eliminating work that people can be *passionate* about. We should not (and with the current state of AI *cannot*) eliminate the kind of work that people can be passionate about, so that isn't an issue in the foreseeable future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,777 Posts
Technology does tend to eliminate the "less meaningful" work; the repetitive physical tasks that people aren't typically passionate about. How many people are excited to mash the picture of a cheeseburger that was verbally ordered? It's no surprise that McDonalds is preparing to eliminate these positions, partly as a consequence of technology progressing, but also partly due to rising minimum wages. Whenever it's cheaper to replace a human with technology, that's exactly what happens.

Jordan Peterson mentions that the military researched how to determine the most useful people to hire (or avoid the least useful). He said the military found that those in the bottom 10% IQ tend to be a net liability rather than have something valuable to contribute to military operations. I don't know how accurate that statement is, but the general principle applies that there will be a certain percentage of low functioning people that either by genetics, injury, or other disability are not capable or willing to contribute work that is both valuable to society, and compensated at a rate people would be willing to work for. As technology and life gets more complex, an increasing percent of people get left behind, and those that get left behind tend to be those at the lower end of the IQ spectrum.

So, eventually autonomous vehicles will eliminate jobs for many people, and those with the fewest skills and IQ will have a particularly difficult time finding meaningful work. People don't typically go from truck driver to software engineer, not because they were lazy, but because they don't have the aptitude for it.

I don't have any great solutions in mind, but others have already proposed the necessity of a basic income to at least provide the physical needs of people, though that does nothing to address the problem of finding meaningful activities to engage in. In my poorly conceived utopia, people would exchange what talent they have for a basic income. Those with artistic talent might paint murals or other art for some number of hours every week. Others might simply provide labor to landscape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
It's never hard to pick out the ignorance of those who've never worked in the field of automation because they have little to offer on the subject other than the tripe fed to them by both sides of the media.

Too many examples right here.

Line those robotaxis up Mary. Please do tell us how much each of them is costing you. Tell us how you're going to profit from this exercise.

You run a publicly traded company. It's your job to keep us informed.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top