Problem with driverless car.

pete75
Posts: 12374
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby pete75 » 11 Jan 2016, 12:43pm

rfryer wrote:
pete75 wrote:Machines beat us at nothing. They're our creations so whatever they're doing is what we designed and made them to do and are just an extension of our own capabilities. Or are you one of those people who thinks a computer does this , a computer does that without realising that, in most cases, it's just doing what it was told to do by a human programmer>

That's quite a strong statement. Computers beat grand masters at chess, and it's not because the programmer was better at chess than the grand master.


The computer is merely analysing the game using rules programmed into it.

rfryer
Posts: 706
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby rfryer » 11 Jan 2016, 12:50pm

pete75 wrote:
rfryer wrote:
pete75 wrote:Machines beat us at nothing. They're our creations so whatever they're doing is what we designed and made them to do and are just an extension of our own capabilities. Or are you one of those people who thinks a computer does this , a computer does that without realising that, in most cases, it's just doing what it was told to do by a human programmer>

That's quite a strong statement. Computers beat grand masters at chess, and it's not because the programmer was better at chess than the grand master.


The computer is merely analysing the game using rules programmed into it.

Yes. And using that analysis to beat us.

I think you are implying that one cannot be "beaten" unless the winner has a superior intelligence, and that therefore computers cannot beat us because they are not (yet) more intelligent than us. I dispute that premise, so cannot agree with the conclusion.

kwackers
Posts: 14006
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby kwackers » 11 Jan 2016, 12:55pm

pete75 wrote:The computer is merely analysing the game using rules programmed into it.

There are machines that can figure out the rules by simply watching the game - and then beat us.

I think it's a very grey area and getting greyer...

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3021
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 11 Jan 2016, 1:00pm

kwackers wrote:
pete75 wrote:The computer is merely analysing the game using rules programmed into it.

There are machines that can figure out the rules by simply watching the game - and then beat us.

I think it's a very grey area and getting greyer...

Getting back to driverless cars, this is one of the two approaches to such vehicles. Some developers are going for the 'program it with comprehensive rules' approach, others for 'let it observe and learn' method. I can't remember off had who's doing what (and I suspect that most will be using a combination).

pete75
Posts: 12374
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby pete75 » 11 Jan 2016, 3:07pm

rfryer wrote:
pete75 wrote:
pete75 wrote:Machines beat us at nothing. They're our creations so whatever they're doing is what we designed and made them to do and are just an extension of our own capabilities. Or are you one of those people who thinks a computer does this , a computer does that without realising that, in most cases, it's just doing what it was told to do by a human programmer>

That's quite a strong statement. Computers beat grand masters at chess, and it's not because the programmer was better at chess than the grand master.

The computer is merely analysing the game using rules programmed into it.

Yes. And using that analysis to beat us.

I think you are implying that one cannot be "beaten" unless the winner has a superior intelligence, and that therefore computers cannot beat us because they are not (yet) more intelligent than us. I dispute that premise, so cannot agree with the conclusion.


I'm not implying that at all. What I'm saying is that machines are created by man to do things for us. If they're doing the things we designed them to do they're hardly beating us but doing what we want them to do. They're an extension of our own capabilities. They may well carry out tasks more quickly or efficiently than us but to look upon that as machines beating us is a very simplistic view. If you take that view then animals beat us as well.

rfryer
Posts: 706
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby rfryer » 11 Jan 2016, 3:32pm

pete75 wrote:
rfryer wrote:I think you are implying that one cannot be "beaten" unless the winner has a superior intelligence, and that therefore computers cannot beat us because they are not (yet) more intelligent than us. I dispute that premise, so cannot agree with the conclusion.


I'm not implying that at all. What I'm saying is that machines are created by man to do things for us. If they're doing the things we designed them to do they're hardly beating us but doing what we want them to do. They're an extension of our own capabilities. They may well carry out tasks more quickly or efficiently than us but to look upon that as machines beating us is a very simplistic view. If you take that view then animals beat us as well.

From Google: "beat: defeat (someone) in a game or other competitive situation".

So "beat" is generally used in a narrow context, which is generally where computers can shine in comparison with a human.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby hubgearfreak » 11 Jan 2016, 8:13pm

the driverless car of the future will allow the commuter several advantages.

1. it will mean that one is not limited to the distance of his commute...one will be able to live in say york and work in london and sleep on the way.
2. when the car gets to london, instead of having to pay parking it can simply drive itself around for 8 hours
3. the car may even be big enough to have an exercise bike in it, or a treadmill, or both - like a mobile gym. allowing one to do some excercise whilst getting to work. ooh, the brilliance of technology.

4. the only problem i can see is when children leave school and cross the road in a not-really-paying-attention manner. currently human operated cars simply blast their horn, accelerate at the errant youth forcing him to jog thus maintaining traffic flow. one assumes that driverless cars will not be able to do this and thus traffic could come to a stop for an hour every morning and every evening whilst bored teeenagers test the stopping powers of the new tech.

pete75
Posts: 12374
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby pete75 » 11 Jan 2016, 8:24pm

hubgearfreak wrote:the driverless car of the future will allow the commuter several advantages.

1. it will mean that one is not limited to the distance of his commute...one will be able to live in say york and work in london and sleep on the way.
2. when the car gets to london, instead of having to pay parking it can simply drive itself around for 8 hours
3. the car may even be big enough to have an exercise bike in it, or a treadmill, or both - like a mobile gym. allowing one to do some excercise whilst getting to work. ooh, the brilliance of technology.

4. the only problem i can see is when children leave school and cross the road in a not-really-paying-attention manner. currently human operated cars simply blast their horn, accelerate at the errant youth forcing him to jog thus maintaining traffic flow. one assumes that driverless cars will not be able to do this and thus traffic could come to a stop for an hour every morning and every evening whilst bored teeenagers test the stopping powers of the new tech.


1. Good idea - and maybe we could join a lot of them together sort of one behind the other to reduce wind resistance. Maybe make a special road with little other traffic and fairly level with cuttings, embankments and tunnels so they don't waste fuel going up and down hills.... :wink:
2. Another good idea - the fuel costs definitely less than London parking charges.
3. Do you think they'd really want that - what about ashtrays and fag dispensers....
4. Nice to know the new things will provide hours of innocent amusement for all the young folk with nowt to do because machines are doing everything... :lol:

pete75
Posts: 12374
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Problem with driverless car.

Postby pete75 » 11 Jan 2016, 8:27pm

rfryer wrote:
pete75 wrote:
rfryer wrote:I think you are implying that one cannot be "beaten" unless the winner has a superior intelligence, and that therefore computers cannot beat us because they are not (yet) more intelligent than us. I dispute that premise, so cannot agree with the conclusion.


I'm not implying that at all. What I'm saying is that machines are created by man to do things for us. If they're doing the things we designed them to do they're hardly beating us but doing what we want them to do. They're an extension of our own capabilities. They may well carry out tasks more quickly or efficiently than us but to look upon that as machines beating us is a very simplistic view. If you take that view then animals beat us as well.

From Google: "beat: defeat (someone) in a game or other competitive situation".

So "beat" is generally used in a narrow context, which is generally where computers can shine in comparison with a human.


Well in that narrow context I can easily "beat" a computer at axe fighting :lol: