Electric Cars

[wendy jacksonParticipant @wendyjackson]

Shared vehicles, will never work, insurance companies and lawyers would have a field day if said vehicle was in an RTC.

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by Mike Poole on 13/07/2019 10:19:37:

One of the factors that makes an electric vehicle viable is the whole life cost of going electric, at the moment the vehicles are more expensive but the fuel is cheaper, if the government move the tax loss from fossil fuel onto electric vehicles then the cost of motoring is going to go up, I doubt that electric vehicles will really get cheaper as the manufactures will try to hang on to as much of any savings as they can. I would think the drive train for an EV is cheaper to make than a petrol or diesel apart from a very expensive battery. Maybe the plan is to price people off the roads. Maybe the future will not be the simple replacement of personal cars, as most of our cars spend the vast majority of their life just parked then maybe shared vehicles or driverless taxis will become common, if the countries vehicle fleet spends its life on the road then we may have clear streets instead of using them as car parks.

Mike

The future may very well take car ownership away from the public and replace them with Autonomous vehicles. I can’t help thinking that those that come after us will laugh at the concept of paying many thousands of pounds for a metal box that gets left outside our houses or place of work for maybe 20 hours a day doing nothing. Call up a car when you need it and hopefully at a cost that everyone in society can afford. Perhaps it will result in less pollution, no car crime, fewer accidents, etc etc. Think of a world without ever getting stuck behind a caravan!

Edited By Vic on 13/07/2019 12:53:26

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember19781]

[This posting has been removed]

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Posted by terry callaghan on 13/07/2019 12:19:00:

Shared vehicles, will never work, insurance companies and lawyers would have a field day if said vehicle was in an RTC.

As part of their vertical strategy Tesla are reported to be actively looking at the insurance market for that very reason and have already claimed that owners will be able to place their own vehicles into the Robotaxis network when not needed by themselves (If/when they ever get autonomy working well enough). And with unique access to vehicle logs they will be able to quote premiums based on user data re speeds, road types, driving behavious etc.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by pgk pgk on 13/07/2019 14:58:14

As part of their vertical strategy Tesla are reported to be actively looking at the insurance market for that very reason and have already claimed that owners will be able to place their own vehicles into the Robotaxis network when not needed by themselves (If/when they ever get autonomy working well enough). And with unique access to vehicle logs they will be able to quote premiums based on user data re speeds, road types, driving behavious etc.

Additionally, they would have access to all the data prior to, and including, the incident!

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by pgk pgk on 13/07/2019 14:58:14:

Posted by terry callaghan on 13/07/2019 12:19:00:

Shared vehicles, will never work, insurance companies and lawyers would have a field day if said vehicle was in an RTC.

As part of their vertical strategy Tesla are reported to be actively looking at the insurance market for that very reason and have already claimed that owners will be able to place their own vehicles into the Robotaxis network when not needed by themselves (If/when they ever get autonomy working well enough). And with unique access to vehicle logs they will be able to quote premiums based on user data re speeds, road types, driving behavious etc.

Fully autonomous vehicles will never be allowed to share the road with human driven vehicles. I am willing to bet everything I have against everything anyone has who cares to take the bet.

Fully autonomous vehicles can only exist if the possibility of "exception handling" is removed from the equation.

Back when I was young & beautiful I gave a very famous lecture to a bunch of egg headed computer nerds many of which went on to create what is now the present state of technology.

I invited a random member of the audience onto stage & we threw a tennis ball to each other. The math, the technology involved in having a robot play 'catch the ball' is phenomenal. Many people misunderstand just how difficult it would be to create such a robot, but it can be done.

I'm trying to explain what is involved as we toss the ball back & forth. Then I substitute the ball for a hand grenade & confirm that the random member is OK with tossing a live grenade

We tossed that grenade back & forth a few times before my finale . . . . Where I explain that given everything that is involved so far you can make a robot to accomplish this task.

Then I pull the pin from the grenade, let the handle fly away to stage left, count to four & toss it.

Have a good long think about what constitutes an exception to the rule, then have a good long think about sharing the road with a vehicle that cannot possibly ever comprehend one.

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Fully automatic vehicles already share the factory floor with other vehicles and pedestrians.

Mike

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Mike Poole on 13/07/2019 18:16:03:

Fully automatic vehicles already share the factory floor with other vehicles and pedestrians.

Mike

Yep, but the possible scenario's are so limited that if one exception did occur then no liability could be placed onto the robot.

They used to lay sand on the floor & dig channels so that the molten iron would flow along the channels & into the pits that they called 'pigs'. Everyone in that foundry knew that you really shouldn't walk across those flowing channels & if you did you should be fully aware of the possible consequences. None of that stopped 1000's of foundry workers losing a foot in the days before we even started to contemplate factory safety.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Posted by Barnaby Wilde on 13/07/2019 18:06:17:

Fully autonomous vehicles will never be allowed to share the road with human driven vehicles. I am willing to bet everything I have against everything anyone has who cares to take the bet.

Fully autonomous vehicles can only exist if the possibility of "exception handling" is removed from the equation.

…….

Then I pull the pin from the grenade, let the handle fly away to stage left, count to four & toss it.

Have a good long think about what constitutes an exception to the rule, then have a good long think about sharing the road with a vehicle that cannot possibly ever comprehend one.

Never is a long time and I'm not sure i have enough left to collect on that wager. I do think it will happen but with restrictions such as fully autonomous only on motorways or on geofenced urban routes at limited speeds

Logically one shouldn't allow bicycles and cars on the same roads but our legislators are too chary of public opinion and too frugal to invest in real cycle routes.

As for your grenade: If you had 100 or 1000 folk taking part I wonder what proportion would catch and throw back, or dive into the orchestra pit or stand stunned and unable to move or run away or run towards? And if you repeated the excercise again next week and the week after would the same proportions do the same thing? At least with AI the machine would (eventually) learn the best survival option.

One of my many criticisms of self drive as it is is indeed the very lack of looking far enough ahead and of not making statistical choices against the unknown. … for example…

I live rurally so when i drive on quietish single carriageway roads I tend to straddle the centre and move over when I see any on-coming traffic – simply because if farm kit or stray sheep etc breaks through a hedge or overhanging tree branches come down I have more time to react. I'll also adjust my road position to give me the best view ahead approaching bends. And indeed I'll moderate the degree of such action depending on the time of year and the weather, The roads here get narrower this time of year as the vegetation grows and then again when the snow drifts happen.

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

I am very cynical when I look at the huge changes, social, financial and otherwise that the imposition of all electric vehicles will mean, I look around and see that we as a nation are unable to conquer the poverty and social deprivation that we have already created.

Dave W

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Samsaranda on 13/07/2019 18:36:46:

I am very cynical when I look at the huge changes, social, financial and otherwise that the imposition of all electric vehicles will mean, I look around and see that we as a nation are unable to conquer the poverty and social deprivation that we have already created.

Dave W

Could you please stop hitting that nail on its head & take into account that most sheeple on here are very well esconced in their comfort zones & don't particularly take well to anything or anyone coming along & rocking their boats.

Should we be talking about actually getting a man on the moon before we can put food in childrens bellies ???

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Barnaby, glad the message is getting through, no one likes to think or hear of unpleasant issues but I despair of our dog eat dog society that gets more and more divisive. I think the huge costs of the electric vehicle revolution will inevitably have significant social consequences for our society, which must be considered.

Dave W

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by pgk pgk on 13/07/2019 18:35:46:

As for your grenade: If you had 100 or 1000 folk taking part I wonder what proportion would catch and throw back, or dive into the orchestra pit or stand stunned and unable to move or run away or run towards? And if you repeated the excercise again next week and the week after would the same proportions do the same thing? At least with AI the machine would (eventually) learn the best survival option.

I would dearly love to rip your whole post apart, maybe over a pint or two. I love folk that are at least capable of thinking about it.

In your scenario, the machine is able to learn from its mistake. In my scenario, & the whole point of my post, is that the machine has just been destroyed because it caught a live grenade.

The exception to the rule is that the machine can be taught to do anything . . . Except for an exception to those rules. If it truly has been programmed to learn from its mistakes then how can it possibly learn from a fatal mistake?

True AI is a load of bollox & it will never happen.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Barnaby Wilde on 13/07/2019 18:06:17:

Posted by pgk pgk on 13/07/2019 14:58:14:

Posted by terry callaghan on 13/07/2019 12:19:00:

Shared vehicles, will never work, insurance companies and lawyers would have a field day if said vehicle was in an RTC.

As part of their vertical strategy Tesla are reported to be actively looking at the insurance market for that very reason and have already claimed that owners will be able to place their own vehicles into the Robotaxis network when not needed by themselves (If/when they ever get autonomy working well enough). And with unique access to vehicle logs they will be able to quote premiums based on user data re speeds, road types, driving behavious etc.

Fully autonomous vehicles will never be allowed to share the road with human driven vehicles. I am willing to bet everything I have against everything anyone has who cares to take the bet.

…

Have a good long think about what constitutes an exception to the rule, then have a good long think about sharing the road with a vehicle that cannot possibly ever comprehend one.

Barnaby, no doubt you'll claim this video is 'Fake News' put out by 'Main Stream Media' only to befuddle half-wits and you're not going to fall for it. Actually you owe me your house.

Not to underestimate the difficulties, but I think autonomous vehicles are clearly possible today. Whether they're legal on the public highway or not depends only on our attitude to risk. I suggest autonomous vehicles should be accepted as soon as they achieve accident rates lower than humans. As computers don't get tired, drunk, go racing, show-off, misjudge distances, and aren't distracted by leggy blondes it may be sooner than expected!

You still haven't explained your earlier post about about electric cars being more expensive to insure than internal combustion. Possibly you are mistaken about that too!

Dave

PS is Barnaby Wilde really Mick Charity in disguise?

[brickyParticipant @bricky]

Where is all the power going to come from,are we going to have forests of wind turbines,and are not batteries made from harmful materials that will be expensive to recycle or dispose of.I have no interlectual knowledge of these questions and am sure someone will provide answers.

Frank

[VicParticipant @vic]

“Not to underestimate the difficulties, but I think autonomous vehicles are clearly possible today. Whether they're legal on the public highway or not depends only on our attitude to risk. I suggest autonomous vehicles should be accepted as soon as they achieve accident rates lower than humans. As computers don't get tired, drunk, go racing, show-off, misjudge distances, and aren't distracted by leggy blondes it may be sooner than expected!”

Here you go Dave.

**LINK**

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Posted by Barnaby Wilde on 13/07/2019 19:06:13:

I would dearly love to rip your whole post apart, maybe over a pint or two. I love folk that are at least capable of thinking about it.

In your scenario, the machine is able to learn from its mistake. In my scenario, & the whole point of my post, is that the machine has just been destroyed because it caught a live grenade.

The exception to the rule is that the machine can be taught to do anything . . . Except for an exception to those rules. If it truly has been programmed to learn from its mistakes then how can it possibly learn from a fatal mistake?

True AI is a load of bollox & it will never happen.

If you're buying….

As for being able to learn from fatal mistakes – easy. The AI in my Tesla example sends recent data back whenever the driver over-rides it's current level of autonomy. It also keeps longer term logs and it's rare than any destruction will destroy all data sources- indeed why there are black boxes on aircraft so that mistakes can be learned from. Again in the case of Tesla they have about 1/2 million cars out there now logging billions of miles and having to build ever larger/aster computer systems to sift that data.

the only difference between human intuition and intelligence and AI is that at the moment we can analyse multiple sources of input and cross-reference, ignore, extrapolate and guess much faster than machines but I don't see anything that can't be duplicated in the (near) future apart from original thought (a rare concept in people)

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

The best thing about autonomous vehicles is that you will be able to give the leggy blonde your full attention, at least until the wife gives you a poke in the ribs.

Mike

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Barnaby Wilde on 13/07/2019 18:06:17:

Posted by pgk pgk on 13/07/2019 14:58:14:

Posted by terry callaghan on 13/07/2019 12:19:00:

…

…

Fully autonomous vehicles can only exist if the possibility of "exception handling" is removed from the equation.

Back when I was young & beautiful I gave a very famous lecture to a bunch of egg headed computer nerds many of which went on to create what is now the present state of technology.

I invited a random member of the audience onto stage & we threw a tennis ball to each other. The math, the technology involved in having a robot play 'catch the ball' is phenomenal. Many people misunderstand just how difficult it would be to create such a robot, but it can be done.

I'm trying to explain what is involved as we toss the ball back & forth. Then I substitute the ball for a hand grenade & confirm that the random member is OK with tossing a live grenade

We tossed that grenade back & forth a few times before my finale . . . . Where I explain that given everything that is involved so far you can make a robot to accomplish this task.

Then I pull the pin from the grenade, let the handle fly away to stage left, count to four & toss it.

Have a good long think about what constitutes an exception to the rule, then have a good long think about sharing the road with a vehicle that cannot possibly ever comprehend one.

First, exception handling is well established in computer programming – many programming languages provide a mechanism whereby unexpected events can be handled. Not necessarily complicated, in an autonomous car a good strategy for dealing with the unexpected would usually be 'STOP'.

Secondly, if autonomous cars are forbidden by your logic then so are CNC machine tools because they cannot deal with exceptions like the operator falling under the cutter. Actually, with reasonable precautions, most of us are happy to take the risk.

Thirdly, although humans are good at learning from experience, it can't be assumed people will deal with an exception better than a machine. Most fast human reactions are reflexes rather than considered actions; you cannot learn to drive by studying the Highway Code, you have to train your primitive brain to perform stops, gear changes, and steering etc. Our actions are at least semi-automatic. An extended childhood is necessary for this and we never stop learning. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. However, the human process of learning by repetition can be emulated by a robot, or pre-programmed, and it may be good enough. Aircraft are capable of flying to a destination and landing without the pilot touching the controls.

People rarely have to decide ethical questions when driving, but if a autonomous vehicle had to deal with a multi-choice exception it could apply the principle of least harm. It might get the answer wrong but so do people – all the time. A poor response is possible whenever taken by surprise by a novel situation such as someone throwing a grenade at you. Pretty dangerous whatever happens, maybe it's safer not to catch it, maybe the correct response is save others by altruistically falling on it. Attacking the thrower is also a valid response to your demonstration – don't try it at Heathrow unless you want to attract gunfire.

There's a reason you weren't duffed up. It's because you didn't throw a live grenade. So there's no rule and no exception to the rule. It was a fake. The demonstration is faulty for another reason, even had it been a real grenade both machine and human are faced with a range of possibilities with no correct solution. There certainly isn't an answer that humans always get right and machines always get wrong. Airport guards are trained to shoot terrorists and a machine could be programmed to do the same. Both are capable of blundering into tragedy.

Nice bit of theatre, but your trick proved nothing. I wonder how many of the egg head nerds were fooled?

Dave

PS counting to four with a real grenade would have given you a tricky exception to deal with. Most modern grenades explode two or three seconds after the lever is released. It's done to stop the other guy throwing it back. Grenades are designed to maim whatever the recipient does.

[martin perman 1Participant @martinperman1]

Based on this nobody has an original thought as we are programmed, taught or what ever by our parents and betters. Everything we do or say has originated from somewhere else in the past.

Is it possible to have an original thought?

The answer is yes and no. Yes, there are original ways to express thoughts, ideas, concepts and philosophies, but no, the actual subject upon which these thought, ideas, concepts and philosophies are based on, are not original. … There's no such thing as originality, just authenticity.

Martin P

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

For no particularly good reason, I will share a real event which happened this morning:

Picture a set of traffic lights, with two clearly defined lanes on both approach and exit …

The exit lanes merge into one after a reasonably short distance [the implied rule being that the two lines of vehicles will take their places alternately].

As I approached the lights, there were two stationary vehicles [a car, followed by a van] in the nearside lane, and the outside lane was clear. … so, I occupied the vacant position in the outside lane.

The lights changed, and I held-back for a moment to let the car go first.

I then realised that the van was tailgating the car and effectively [intentionally?] blocking my merge.

My [necessarily split-second] decision was to pass both vehicles, to avoid the oncoming traffic.

The manouvre was completed without undue fuss, but clearly irritated the car driver !!

… I would have liked to apologise and explain; but we rarely have that opportunity.

So: What would the autonomous vehicle have done, in my situation ?

.

MichaelG.

[dcostaParticipant @dcosta]

Hi,
Autonomous vehicle?
See **HERE** please.

Link: https://www.translatetheweb.com/?from=pt&to=en&refd=www.translatetheweb.com&dl=en&rr=UC&a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.portugalms.com%2fcascais-ja-tem-um-veiculo-autonomo-mas-quer-ter-doze%2f

Regards
Dias Costa

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Whilst we are straying from the OP slightly I do think that it's still all interconnected.

Complex problems require complex solutions. Will the AI that is capable of driving a car along a busy highway also be able to solve a marriage breakdown?

Sounds silly doesn't it, but if you take a complex problem like driving along a busy highway & compare that to a complex problem like a marriage breakdown then anything that can miraculously solve 1 should easily be able to tackle the other. Perhaps the now redundant driver could seek advice from the car during the commute.

Boeing has a complex problem with the 737max. When we finally take pilots out of the cockpit who do we blame when they drop out of the sky?

With all the parking space taken up by £billions of dollars of aircraft, where will Uber park all of it's fully autonomous EV taxis ???

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by Barnaby Wilde on 14/07/2019 02:57:40:

Whilst we are straying from the OP slightly I do think that it's still all interconnected.

Complex problems require complex solutions. Will the AI that is capable of driving a car along a busy highway also be able to solve a marriage breakdown?

Sounds silly doesn't it, but if you take a complex problem like driving along a busy highway & compare that to a complex problem like a marriage breakdown then anything that can miraculously solve 1 should easily be able to tackle the other.

When AI can give coherent and unplagiarised A grade answers to essay questions on literary topics such as those I faced in A Level French:

"Discuss Flaubert's use of symbolism and irony in Madame Bovary".

"In Flaubert's Madame Bovary, how did Charles Bovary's personality persuade Emma to marry him and contribute to her downfall?"

"In what ways is Madame Bovary a realistic novel?"

then I will be prepared to change my present view: that there are significant limits to the ways in which AI can, and forseeably will be able to, substitute for or even merely help human beings.

Perhaps, though, you were being ironic.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

I think the last few posters are missing the point of computer AI.

1) In the case of issues at the traffic lights the simplified options were to race ahead or to wait and take a gap behind. Racing ahead worked this time (and my EV could have beaten the lot off the lights if I'd wanted to) but was based in male agression and risked causing a road rage incident. Doubtless AI would have learned that it's statistically better to arrive later and less often undamaged than take those risks. Indeed AI might have learned that such extra lanes are better not used and just queued to being with… patiently
As far as the piloting of aircraft with boeing's latest problem – pilots on board didn't help due to the engineering error in software.

2)AI developed for driving isn't designed for marriage counselling any more than your average HGV driver is trained for that role. It's likely that such counselling has it's own inherent rules, sympathies and persuasions that can be turned into algorithm's and if inserted into an autonomous HGV's database it could do both roles. AI improves with iterations (as do people with experience)

3) Madame Bovary. You went through several lessons at school being taught the sort of approach to analysing text and the sort of things examiners would be looking at to give marks. It had rules. Just consider the vast improvements that have occurred in voice recognition and translation software over the last decade. There has been software for a long time that can change a piece of prose into a particular authors style since authors have an (evolving) depth of vocabulary, individual understanding of grammar and punctuation, degree of verbosity, pretension etc. AI would at least have had a total memory of that book rather than limited human recall and a complete dictionary.

AI is still evolving and of course has limitations – so do people. AI is a tool and should be accepted as such. You don't expect an HGV to race at le Mans or an F1 car to carry a shipping container or tow a plough – those engineering marvels have been developed for a specific task and took a long time to be developed to do that and are still being tweaked. Indeed much of the advance is down to computer simulations – trial and error

[Author]

Posts