Image transcript:

White background meme with the text “People want to build a massive connected network of driverless cars to ‘solve’ traffic. Doesn’t that sound a bit like giving SkyNet control of all the nukes?”

There are illustrative images of the proposed “network of driverless cars” as well as a menacing image of a terminator robot and an image from a news report about a deadly crash caused by a self-driving Uber.

  • FMT99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think 2 would be massively easier to solve if there were no human drivers. Drop private ownership, every car a self-driving uber. We’d need much less of them, they could coordinate without having to account for irrational human behavior. And they could be mandated to always give way at crossings.

    Public transport is still superior of course, but I think it’s something that could make cars less objectionable.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wouldn’t. Have you seen those massive drone light displays? they lose drones during the shows. Nothing indicates that machine learning would fare better. Because reality is way more complex than a computer can simulate. I mean, even in an entirely humanless car network, a single misplaced traffic cone could send the whole system into shutdown. No system is failproof.

      • FMT99@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about that, it’s all about tolerances. Losing a drone from a cloud is probably considered an acceptable loss.

        How many trains crash every year (leaving out poor maintenance for the moment)? Those systems are highly complex and almost fully automated. AI’s not even really needed.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, in a swarm system, losing a drone is fine. A car fully automated network, as CGP suggest, is a swarm system. If they are cars with people inside of it, it isn’t acceptable to lose units, we can’t accept even a single autonomous car randomly losing control into a tree. No matter that humans do that. The system has to be better than humans, not equally bad. Train systems are inherently free from this variation.

    • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretty much my thought process. It’s the humans doing human things that are difficult to code for. Honestly just putting Bluetooth in every car so you can see how fast they are moving and maybe predicting their projectory would be useful.

      Im thinking birds eye view like in GTA or something. You can see where you want to go and what obstacles are in the way. Gives you a lot longer to react than if it’s just your view out of the window.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That can be done more reliably with lidar. Adding BT and other wireless dependencies to critical control systems opens up new vulnerabilities and attack vectors. Sociopath hackers would use it to fake an imminent collision and cause crashes.

        The most efficient path forward is higher density cities, less low density sprawl, and free mass transit (trains, light rail, and buses) to remove the dependency on private cars, then gradually upgrading to driverless only lanes and roadways as private vehicle traffic is reduced over time; much more realistic than waiting for tech companies and politicians to solve complex technical and regulatory problems that could take many decades.

        The government should also be directing investment and subsidies to smaller single-person “pod” transport options too, as it’d be cheaper, easier, and more efficient overall if we could accommodate the majority of traffic in both directions within a single car lane, freeing up space for future transition work — after-all, most road traffic is a single person in a 5+ seater car.

        • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lidar can’t do that. It can ping things but not beyond those initial ones. ? Correct it’s radar but for light ? Obviously BT would create a whole new havock but it might also make life a lot easier because you know where things are that you can’t see.

          You can’t see past the lorry in front of you but you can see a car is a few miles away up the road. You’ve time to pass. In the dark you can’t see but BT can.

          Hackers can’t do shit. This always gets blown out. Hackers will screw systems and kill people, hackers will do this and that. Yeah I’m sure maybe a hundred can actually do that. So you’ve got 100 deaths.

          I think there’s already been 30 deaths on our roads this year. I think the hacker thing is a red herring.

          Absolutely agreed but I don’t live in a city so none of those things help me. Cities are pretty easy to solve some traffic woes. But for country it’s much harder and where I need driverless.

          Absolutely agree. I was just thinking about this the other day. I just need a tiny transport vehicle for me. I don’t need 5 seats and a boot 90% of the time.