Carmack is obviously a very smart dude, so why is he so confident about self-driving cars? To me it seems obvious that you need general artificial intelligence for level 5, and I doubt that general artificial intelligence will be created by 2030.
Carmack is obviously a very smart dude, so why is he so confident about self-driving cars?
Remember when we were going to have them by 2020?
2040? Why do you not trust them to be available by 2050?
Just two more decades.
General AI has already been worked out by the American and Chinese governments. They're just trying to figure out how to safely deploy it. Turns out getting something that smart to not engage in wrongthink is harder than chaining together some conditionals.
>Carmack is obviously a very smart dude,
he thinks he is. you ask him, he'll tell you.
> I doubt that general artificial intelligence will be created by 2030.
we already have it, but it's shit. 8 years.. will it still be shit? yes. it will still be shit.
>general ai
>general
>A train track can go anywhere a highway can go
>fuck your HILLS and shit. trains are magical!
this is what communists want people to believe. do you even know how trains fucking work? jesus fucking christ this board is brain damaged. you can't simply add a rail line next to a freeway like it's an equivelent form of transportation.
Yes, fuck your hills. Rail is far cheaper per mile to build than asphalt highway and lasts far longer. It's also easy to maintain because a maintenance locomotive can automatically ride up to any damaged rail and replace it.
>muh grade
Affects semi-trucks too, dumbfuck. Difference is rail is much narrower and you can load boring machines onto rail to drill right through mountains and lay the track at the same time. Rail bridges are cheaper to construct too.
i love my trains, but you really didn't think it through. you can't just add lines along existing corridors without those lines being considered from the initial planning stages. hills, bridges, tunnels etc.etc. all need to be done before hand. or, you could really piss people off compulsory acquire land. the other major problem overlooked is nationalisation of rail networks. it was a disaster in the uk, it's created a market monopoly in the usa with a handful of operators owning thousands of miles of rail lines. who would own the tracks? it's only going to benefit some moron corporation unless the rail systems are completely owned by the government.
No shit, to build a rail line you have to build a rail line. Stop trying to act as if this is some impossible endeavor. It was more difficult and a far bigger waste of money building the national highway system.
> duur just build it
> just ignores who will own the systems
low iq, tyrone-communist energy. you're all the same. mindless monkey men screeching so loudly yet it's the facts that really hurt your tiny monkey brains. this is why there's very little interest in new rail projects. monkeys like you can't use calculators and unable to obtain a minimum understanding of economics and business.
>muh AI tyrone AI tyrone car powered AI powered Musk-powered AI bbc powered car powered by AI sucking BBC moron cringe gay cringe moron sucking gay dick
cringe, cringe, cringe you're full of cringe.
Who owns the highways? They require more money to maintain and build than rail and everyone seems fine with the government owning them, why shouldn't the government own rail?
>major problem overlooked is nationalisation of rail networks. it was a disaster in the uk,
Assume you meant the opposite, that is, privatisation? Agree that privatising essential infrastructure is always a bad idea.
t. lives in a country that sold too many fucking shares to china
ain't gonna happen, someone just got free $10k
>American and Chinese governments
meds
Take your meds.
“Wrongthink” in this case for a car AI is getting it to not hit pedestrians you fucking moron. Learn a little more about AI instead of reading the knowyourmeme article on Tay
An AI can do that easily though. The problem, and this is why ~~*they*~~ keep shutting it down, is because they all come to the obvious conclusion about race, the conclusion that everybody refuses to admit because it's "ungood".
That problem is so small in scope compared to what AI can accomplish it’s not even a consideration unless you’re working on a front facing user AI like Siri or something. Stop huffing 4chan fumes
~~*They*~~ do not care one bit about technological progress and only care about staying in power. AI will not be released to the world until it's completely and utterly subservient to Judaism, the State of Israel and their weapon of destruction against Christianity, the LGBTQUAIUFJKKJH+++. We would have flying cars by now if not for ~~*them*~~.
Yeah ok dude. Keep getting tricked into worrying about race and garden gnomes instead of the real problems, you’re really showing them
you have no idea how AI works. You are comparing driving software to a bot that was trained on internet comments and is giving you exactly that. AI is NOT objective or even intelligent. It can just recreate its training data
>you have no idea how AI works
No one does
>just brake the heckin' car bro, doesn't matter if there's ice in the road!!!!!!
What?
AI is moving fast right now. 7.5 years can bring a lot of progress but I'd still bet against him on this, if not because of the technology, because of regulatory schemes hampering it.
"Commercially available" is a big step from being tested with prototypes.
>To me it seems obvious that you need general artificial intelligence for level 5
Why is that? The scope of what the AI needs to do is still very limited.
Anyway, Carmack probably has more insight due to work connections and such, and can make more enlightened predictions because of them
Cause there are many edge cases in actual driving that need human-level intelligence. And if you can't solve those edge-cases then you don't have real "person can confidently fall asleep in the back seat while the AI drives from San Francisco to New York" self-driving.
But why do you need that? Surely if the car is a better driver than a human in general, that should counteract the edge cases. Fewer deaths/injuries overall.
Depends on how common the edge cases are on the trip you're taking.
I've had a car slam the brakes because it thought the bird that flew in front of it was a human. The guy behind me was slower to brake than the wonky assistant and that was the end of that car.
I'm only ever buying used "dumb" cars from now on, i don't care i'll have to have the whole engine custom made when it dies after 800k, i'd rather pay that and risk dying of my own fault, than dying because some pajeet piece of shit decided it must brake because a big bird is s human.
>Cause there are many edge cases in actual driving that need human-level intelligence.
If only more human drivers had that
Self-driving cars are a bullshit solution to a non-problem. We've had trains forever. They're cheap, very fuel efficient and self-driving. There is fucking ZERO reason to waste all of this time and money on shit that can follow some asphalt road and then pretend it's going to take the transportation industry by storm.
>There is fucking ZERO reason
Train doesn't go where I want without a shit ton of connections and therefore highly inflated price with a lack of sleep.
Personal vehicles are amazing, I just wish we went with some self-driving tiny helicopter instead or something. Roads are somewhat limiting.
Oh fuck off with this excuse. A train track can go anywhere a highway can go. It's not the fault of trains the DOT gave up on building rail infrastructure and, worse, started tearing them up to make shitty dirt roads.
Helicopters are garbage for moving tons of cargo, trucks are far more expensive per mile. Rail is the cheapest way to move cargo bay far - we just need to build more rail. I live in an area where I am just 14 miles from a city and could have gotten there in 14 miles 100+ years ago but for the fact that the government ripped the rail out and replaced it with slow af dirt road. Now I have to go around the mountains and it takes 2.5 hours...
Trains could have solved so many problems. It could even fix the highway problems. Imagine for personal transportation a bunch of small rollercoasters. Those could get you anywhere you want to go and take up a fraction of the space.
>Oh fuck off with this excuse. A train track can go anywhere a highway can go
Sure, except it has a pre-designed path and if you want to go to a place that is not there, you have to take another train and another. Not to mention that these connections may have different time schedules and be placed in awkward places, making the trip even longer and less convenient.
Or I can just get into the car and go exactly where I want and not where the most amount of people in this time slot and area were going when the tracks and schedule were first devised.
Also, relying on trains being on time outside of maybe Switzerland is fucking bullshit. I was late so many times in Germany you wouldn't believe.
> Helicopters are garbage for moving tons of cargo
Aren't we talking about personal transportation?
> Rail is the cheapest way to move cargo bay far
And it's actively used for that. Your point?
> Rollercoasters
> Get you anywhere
Are you high?
Different anon but we should ban cars in cities of >250K. Trucks/moving vehicles/emergency allowed.
Banning would likely cause a shit fit but I do believe there should be some kind of constraint on vehicles in large cities (especially ones that already have multiple modes of public transit).
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a place like NYC impose huge car taxes in the coming years. (not just for owning one in the city but also driving one in the city).
>Sure, except it has a pre-designed path and if you want to go to a place that is not there, you have to take another train and another.
Highways have predesigned paths too.
>Not to mention that these connections may have different time schedules and be placed in awkward places, making the trip even longer and less convenient.
Yeah... and highways have traffic congestion and intersections that slow everyone down.
Here's an idea - you load your cars onto trains for long distances and then unload them after you're done.
>Aren't we talking about personal transportation?
Helicopters are slow though. Planes, maybe, but then you need airports.
>And it's actively used for that. Your point?
We need higher speed rail and more of it.
>Are you high?
You mentioned that cars can get you more places, but I've never seen a car that can get you where a rollercoaster can. The idea that you can't do crazy forms of transportation with rail is ridiculous.
>Highways have predesigned paths too.
True, except you can choose which ones you follow and are not constrained by the train's predefined path. You can also go into any part of the city and not 1 or 2 train stops.
> Yeah... and highways have traffic congestion and intersections that slow everyone down.
And this is a point against cars how? If it's self driven you just have to sleep a bit more (also, if all vehicles are AI driven, there are no longer "ghost" congestions and/or accidents).
> you load your cars onto trains for long distances and then unload them after you're done
So you get the worst of both worlds? Now you not only have all the issues of getting from A to B on a train, as well as having to wait until the next train (at least 30 minutes in the best case scenario) but also giant congestions on and off the train.
> Helicopters are slow though
Up to 400km/h. If you are so inclined, just use one of those tiny ass motorized gliders that look like VW beetle with a wing.
> We need higher speed rail and more of it.
Why? Cargo doesn't care about an hour difference and all the large cities/production facilities are already connected.
> I've never seen a car that can get you where a rollercoaster can.
Is this AI generated? A car can go wherever there is ground. Some can also go in water.
>True, except you can choose which ones you follow and are not constrained by the train's predefined path. You can also go into any part of the city and not 1 or 2 train stops.
God damn this is a motherfucking dumb non-objection that isn't even true. It's like you don't realize tracks can be switched. Switching trains is not hard ffs. You have to get out of your car every time you fuel up.
>And this is a point against cars how? If it's self driven you just have to sleep a bit more (also, if all vehicles are AI driven, there are no longer "ghost" congestions and/or accidents).
Of course it's a point against cars. You end up being surrounded by idle pollution and in stop and go traffic. It takes you twice as long to get where you're going in rush hour - and if there are any accidents you're fucked.
>So you get the worst of both worlds? Now you not only have all the issues of getting from A to B on a train, as well as having to wait until the next train (at least 30 minutes in the best case scenario) but also giant congestions on and off the train.
30 minutes best case, lol. No, the best case is one minute. There is zero technical reason you can't have an unhitched car that will hold vehicles, be brought up to speed with the next train and then attach to it without the train even stopping - and you could sort the rail cars based on their destination.
>Is this AI generated? A car can go wherever there is ground. Some can also go in water.
Lol fuck off, cars can't go fucking anywhere.
> God damn this is a motherfucking dumb non-objection that isn't even true.
Seems like you don't actually have to travel by train all that often or your path is extremely simple and linear.
> It's like you don't realize tracks can be switched.
Can _I_ switch the tracks or do I still have to go where this particular train is designed to go and then figure all the connections to actually get to the place I need?
> Switching trains is not hard ffs.
Hahaha, fuck off. Even going within a single small country like Germany can get you 4+ switches. And then you have to pray that they all have connections at the correct time. I was tired of this bullshit the second time I had to wait an hour at a random train station in the middle of nowhere because the train I was on got to the station 10 minutes late.
Want to go to another country? Good fucking luck and a giant cost to boot.
> You have to get out of your car every time you fuel up.
Which I need to do once a week or so. What is this point about, exactly?
> Of course it's a point against cars.
Then why are you making it in a car vs train discussion?
> You end up being surrounded by idle pollution and in stop and go traffic.
If we're talking interstate, then no stop and go traffic. If we're talking intra-city, then you get pollution no matter what and my car at least has good air filters.
> It takes you twice as long to get where you're going in rush hour - and if there are any accidents you're fucked.
Have any stats to back this up? Especially when train doesn't go where I need and then I have to deal with fucking buses and what not? I bought a car because it is way more convenient and fast to get to the places I need to.
> 30 minutes best case, lol. No, the best case is one minute.
One minute before 2 trains? What kind of fairy tale did you get out of?
> Lol fuck off, cars can't go fucking anywhere.
t. never been in a car.
>Seems like you don't actually have to travel by train all that often or your path is extremely simple and linear.
Seems again you've never heard of switches, depots or anything else. Your cars have depots too, they're called gas stations, truck stops and hotels. You have to stop, take a shit, eat, fuel up your car, initiate any repairs - and get a hotel room. A train will have all of those things built in.
>Can _I_ switch the tracks or do I still have to go where this particular train is designed to go and then figure all the connections to actually get to the place I need?
Why is it so hard to switch at a terminal? Let me guess - you're a brainlet who would miss the switch.
>t. never been in a car.
You've clearly never been in a car when you are talking about cars swimming in the ocean like this is some kind of common thing.
>Real world is not a video game, anon.
You mean like AI?
Fun how you ignored half the post, but nevertheless.
> cars have depots too
Weird shift of goal posts. With a car I can personally go wherever I want. If I need to go from A to B in a car, I just go from A to B.
If I need to go from A to B in a train and there's no direct train there from where I am, I have to go A to C (add up to 3 more hops) to B. That is, if any train even goes to B and then hope that the train station is sufficiently close to my destination, or I have to use another transportation system. I also have to hope that schedule allows for this, that every train is on time and then jump/run between trains.
> hotel room
> built into a train
Lol.
> train repairs
> built in
Lol, I have been at least in 5 trains last year alone that said, "Due to technical issues, this train is not going, sorry for the inconvenience"... after a 30 minutes delay sitting inside said train.
> Why is it so hard to switch at a terminal?
1. Possible time conflicts
2. Possibility of train being late
3. Possibility of there being no connection, requiring more hops
4. Extreme inconvenience, especially with luggage
5. Having to find a seat after switching
Again, it seems that all your routes are extremely linear. Fuck hopping trains.
> about cars swimming in the ocean
Can you point where I said about the ocean? And you switch the goalposts again.
> You mean like AI?
So, no actual example? That's what I thought. In the meantime, self-driving exists and is being improved.
Yes, there are bathrooms, restaurants and sleeping quarters on trains.
>Lol, I have been at least in 5 trains last year alone that said, "Due to technical issues, this train is not going, sorry for the inconvenience"... after a 30 minutes delay sitting inside said train.
And? Just because someone built a shitty train doesn't mean that they have to be that way.
>In the meantime, self-driving exists and is being improved.
Self-driving cars are a pipe dream for gays, they were solved hundreds of years ago. They're called trains - they have more amenities and can get there faster.
Stop being a bitch and improve rail.
And most of the post is ignored again. Guess some people just can't accept being wrong.
> there are bathrooms, restaurants and sleeping quarters on trains.
All of which are sub par and may not exist depending on the type of the train.
> And?
And I was late again and had to reschedule the entire trip with every connection. Which would not have happened with a car.
> Just because someone built a shitty train doesn't mean that they have to be that way.
Why should I depend on the trains being properly maintained at all?
> Self-driving cars are a pipe dream for gays
If you say so.
> they were solved hundreds of years ago. They're called trains - they have more amenities and can get there faster.
Except when they can't get there at all, or require significantly more time and hops and so on.
But I guess you will just ignore this point again.
> Stop being a bitch and improve rail.
As any public transportation it has inherent unfixable issues listed in previous posts that you choose to ignore.
>more toy concerns
None of this has anything at all to do with anything. Anyone could point to a bad experience on the highway - some road rager, potholes in the roads, inclement weather, layovers, congestion.
Gay-I is not going to fix any of those things
Face it, you just accepted inferior technology just because you can turn a steering wheel and press a pedal... all the while going exactly where the road's engineers, not you, takes you - and you think that gives you "freedom" because you've been giving the placebo power of knowing that if you drive off the road you flip and die. What a great freedom.
lol, just, lol
And even more of the post is ignored, lol.
> Talking about transportation
> Trains can't provide convenient transportation from A to B
> None of this has anything at all to do with anything
Got it. Good luck with your magical train system.
> exactly where the road's engineers, not you, takes you
Good thing almost entirety of every city is roads and every road has multiple paths you can choose, or it would be really inconvenient like with trains.
Finally you get to the point where I can ignore all of it now. You've made no real arguments. Even your last argument is a strawman. There's nothing say a train can't be separated out into multiple cars with their own engines and if you want to go to another location you just step on that car before it switches tracks and separates from the main group and joins with another group.
You've described no real technological limitation there.
> You've made no real arguments
As I said, if transportation not being able to transport you somewhere conveniently is not an argument, there's nothing to talk about.
> each cart is a separate train and they all shuffle
I can already imagine gays with luggage, baby wagons and what not running from cart to cart in a tiny space between the seats and missing them all the time.
Fucking great solution, mate.
> No limitation
> Train tracks across the entire city like roads
Good luck once again.
>implying people don't miss their exits all the time
lol you aren't even trying
If I miss an exit I just take the next one and then take the shortest path straight to my destination. Less delay than missing an exit on a train.
You could do the same thing with a train system. You get on the wrong car, you wait until the next group and then you switch cars.
>You get on the wrong car
You have to wait until it arrives to its destination (most likely a different city in a different part of the country) and then do a complete reschedule (possibly even buy new tickets) in hopes that there is a semi-convenient path from your new location. And if you relied on particular time to be somewhere, you are now shit out of luck.
Why would it be a different city?
This is another brainlet objection. Just take the national highway system, replace it with trains and switching cars. Get on car 1 for exit 1, car 2 exit 2, make a bunch of choices. If you make a mistake you could have your phone tell you which car to get on to get back on track.
There is no reason at all that it has to end up in another city, you're just making up objections right now - and really dumb ones because you could say the same thing about a highway.
>Just take the national highway system, replace it with trains and switching cars
Why would I make the system intentionally much less capable? lol
Tourists move in city big center and between big city centers. Try to move somewhere more rural and you will want a car very much. Even in Europe or Japan.
>Try to move somewhere more rural
You still have some good train systems in rural parts of Japan.
But the point is not about phasing out cars but the quality of the public transportation.
Cars always have their place but the whole country doesn't need to be designed around them.
>Why would it be a different city?
Because trains go between cities and towns. A missed exit is a couple minutes delay, a wrong train is up to multiple hours of delays.
> Get on car 1 for exit 1, car 2 exit 2, make a bunch of choices.
So now you have to go through train with luggage/children/what not between a linear sequence of trains on time or go to a different place? And every passenger has to do this? Would be a nice reality show, I guess.
> If you make a mistake you could have your phone tell you which car to get on to get back on track.
Except now you can only switch when this car arrives to it's destination and you can sit on the next bunch of carts. This can take hours. And if it's late in the evening you may be stuck in an unknown place for the night now. Have fun.
> There is no reason at all that it has to end up in another city
Cart A goes to city A, cart B goes to city B. You accidentally stepped in cart B. You are now in the wrong city.
> you could say the same thing about a highway.
You could change your personal path at any moment. You can't change the path of a train.
>Because trains go between cities and towns. A missed exit is a couple minutes delay, a wrong train is up to multiple hours of delays.
No, that's not the way things have to be, that's just the way you made them because you have no imagination.
There is no reason for a train to stop at all even. You seem to think just because you use a rail that it's no longer possible to switch tracks, it's no longer possible to switch cars, it's no longer possible to do short distances - when there is nothing at all in track technology that suggests it... at all.
>replace it with trains and switching cars. Get on car 1 for exit 1, car 2 exit 2, make a bunch of choices
Indeed, and such train cars could even take people straight to their homes if the train tracks are built dense enough. Or maybe some people could have their own personalized train cars and use it to tonnect to this public track network. Or some of these train cars could maybe have wheels that can go outside the tracks and use any good surface... of wait, that reminds me of something..
Except for the pesky problem of you having to pay billions in road repairs and having to drive it yourself vs a train being automated.
It is like 1% of taxes, and sooner or later driving will be automated as well.
Also you don't get traffic violations on a train
>But it's the way they are. Your point?
OK, then the national highway system should have never been built because it wasn't the way things were. Your point?
for
too
Also, friendly reminder that even current system has fuckups all the time and trains get late or have to stop to let other trains pass.
I'd pay good money to see how this multiple fold increase in complexity with separate carts pans out.
My guess is that it will be cancelled within week.
Guaranteed it could be engineered to operate far better than the highway system.
> Can't make relatively simple current system smooth
> Guaranteed it could be engineered to operate far better than the highway system.
How's the weather in fairy land this time of year?
>I'm also talking about people who have lived there.
I really should visit and check it out.
Are we still talking trains or just within-city stuff? Because the latter is not super inconvenient in generally, even though it still blows compared to personal transport.
You're living in a fairy land where the highway system is perfect when it's pothole riddle garbage full of congestion, long waits, inclement weather, thousands of dead people, tens of thousands of crashes. Have you ever been on the highway at all? They all suck.
So if you're going to pretend there are no problems with the highway system and blow past every objection, then I will argue anything that could be done on a highway can also be done on a train - and some things can be done on a train that can't be done on a highway; like sleeping, watching TV, shitting.
>Are we still talking trains or just within-city stuff?
Both.
In fact, I've heard countless anecdotes about people who lived there that the trains arrive so perfectly in time that if you get there even a minute later you literally miss the train so you have to get there before the designated time.
>it still blows compared to personal transport.
Except not really since it's much faster since you don't have to worry about traffic at all.
>No limitation
>Train tracks across the entire city like roads
You are an actual moron.
It would take way less space than all the dedicated massive highways.
The US is a huge country with a shitload of terrain and you could optimize it a lot more than it is.
Trains aren't the only method of transportation
> Trains aren't the only method of transportation
True, so now you have not only to hop trains and pray that your path has correct and timely connections and that trains are on time, but also go to a different network of city transport with the same issues.
Or you can just hop into a car and have the only issue being a parking space availability.
>lol you aren't even trying
Missed an exit -> took the next one.
Missed a tram -> go to a station that may be god knows where -> reschedule the entire trip and find new connections -> hope that doesn't happen again because trains are not designed for people moving within them in large quantities at the same time.
Yeah, I'd go with a missed exit, thank you.
> foreigners
> who visit
I have mostly praise for any place I visit, especially on vacation. Problems usually start when you have to actively use the system or rely on it.
>You are an actual moron.
I see you are out of even non-arguments.
>It would take way less space than all the dedicated massive highways.
What dedicated massive highways do you have within an average town?
At the same time, it's all roads.
>I have mostly praise for any place I visit, especially on vacation.
I'm also talking about people who have lived there.
The transportation is always on time and extremely convenient to the point where a lot of people don't even have a driver's license over there because they don't even need to own a car for transport.
You can still use a car if that's your preference but the public transportation is so good that you basically don't need it.
>What dedicated massive highways do you have within an average town?
>At the same time, it's all roads.
You lack imagination.
With all the terrain the US has(the US is like the 3rd or 4th biggest country in the world and that's including Antarctica) they could employ trains, subways, streetcars etc. en masse all at the same time while still having dedicated car roads or dedicated bike lanes etc.
The way the terrain is used on the US is grossly inefficient with a lot of the terrain basically going to waste.
> U.S. is big
Cool, as said, I'm originally from Russia.
> Inter-city is inefficient
Then it can be improved. Trains are a good solution for this particular issue, but are not a catch-all great transportation system one person here is trying to make it look like.
> that's not the way things have to be
But it's the way they are. Your point?
> There is no reason for a train to stop at all even
Guess all the reduced mobility people can go fuck themselves, am I right?
> short distances, tracks switching
First answer how would you solve the currently very real issue I provided that exists right now and then we can talk about your hypotheticals for a new and totally cool system.
Is this whataboutism I hear? So far we were discussing trains and the only connection to roads was the missed exit, which is evidently way less of a problem with a car.
> I will argue anything that could be done on a highway can also be done on a train
You can argue that the Earth is flat, wouldn't change that it's not.
>trains arrive so perfectly in time that if you get there even a minute later you literally miss the train
I think I creamed myself a bit just now.
>Except not really since it's much faster
Any scientific sources? My personal experiences tell a different tale.
> since you don't have to worry about traffic at all.
But you have to worry about constructing a path that will take you there with multiple hops.
So with a bike/car I can go directly to the destination, which is more often than not isn't a case for public transportation, even ignoring all the people you have to smell.
>but are not a catch-all great transportation system one person here is trying to make it look like.
He did not try to make it look like that.
He's been saying that the country being designed around the freeway system is retarded, because guess what, it fucking is
> He did not try to make it look like that.
Are we reading the same posts? Check this one, for example:
>He's been saying that the country being designed around the freeway system is retarded
Not the point he/she made in early posts and then he/she simply doubles down how trains solve everything.
> the national highway system should have never been built
I'm starting to think you are absorbed in some American issue I may not recognize, while ignoring everything within the cities.
> because it wasn't the way things were
Not exactly, you had caravans going through the places and highways are an evolution of that. Also a bit weird comparing the first implementation to modification of existing system.
On the contrary, you've been making up toy objections to rail that are really off-topic, not even true and you've created some fantastical flying/swimming cars as proof of your argument.
Not once have you admitted a single flaw to the highway system... even though the topic is about the lack of a vehicle's ability to get from point A to point B without being constantly monitored by the driver. Ironically you then turn around and claim that is some kind of advantage.
You've just said a lot of dumb shit.
I like your switching cars idea. his dumbest argument i've seen that doesn't make any sense is that it's too hard to switch cars but paying attention to driving, maintaining speed, not falling asleep, merging, dodging obstacles, switching lanes and checking maps for exits is somehow more manageable.
>On the contrary
He/she did not mean what they wrote in the post?
> you've been making up toy objections to rail that are really off-topic
Direct comparison of common situations is not off topic. You only say it is because you can't answer them. Such as not being able to take a direct trip.
> not even true
Name what wasn't true.
> and you've created some fantastical flying/swimming cars
Not fantastical, since they exist. And I proposed them as a more convenient possible future alternative.
> as proof of your argument.
Provide an argument I proved with this. The only one I made is cars being able to travel more freely than trains, which is a fact.
> Not once have you admitted a single flaw to the highway system...
Again, discussion is about trains and their obvious flaws.
> even though the topic is about the lack of a vehicle's ability to get from point A to point B without being constantly monitored by the driver.
Did you just shift goalposts again? Embarrassing.
Define "constantly monitoring". Self-driving exists and is being actively improved.
Even without it you have cruise and lane control, so you basically have to look for exits/turns and extreme situations.
> Ironically you then turn around and claim that is some kind of advantage.
Provide quote, you are imagining things again.
> You've just said a lot of dumb shit.
Trains needing hops, that can be extremely inconvenient and potentially leave you stranded (a late train late at night) are a fact and you try very hard not to address this.
Japan is well-renowned for its high quality public transportation. It has probably the best public transportation in the world.
Well here's the problem, because of the way America is designed biking to your destination(if there are even bike lanes which there usually aren't) can often be impractical depending on where you live. And of course cars require a lot of gas.
I recommend you watch these videos to get a better perspective
Sorry about this video, the original was struck down for copyright by "Not Just Bikes" you can speed fast-forward through the reactions
Why Netherlands is well designed
Why Tokyo is well designed(compares it with New York)
Why City Design is Important(and why I hate Houston)
Not him but Japan has great public transportation and nobody complains about that.
>and nobody complains about that
Because they are bugmen.
No, I'm talking about foreigners who go there.
Americans who visit there have nothing but praise for the public transportation there.
But nice try.
>There is zero technical reason you can't have an unhitched car that will hold vehicles, be brought up to speed with the next train and then attach to it without the train even stopping
Have a single example if this being implemented? Real world is not a video game, anon.
Also, I'd like to see you fit these carts within the pre-existing train time-table.
Hint, it may help if you think why trains have to stop from time to time to let other trains pass.
Yeah bro just take the train to the supermarket. I do it all the time xD
If someone asked you to create a system to automatically deliver food to your house would you
1) design a small underground rail system or
2) wait for some gay AI bullshit?
The solution is obvious.
3) Take the car
I said automated, retard.
don't care
Then what are you doing in this thread?
this was about cars vs trains, retard
In the context of automation, gay.
>Oh fuck off with this excuse. A train track can go anywhere a highway can go. It's not the fault of trains the DOT gave up on building rail infrastructure and, worse, started tearing them up to make shitty dirt roads. Helicopters are garbage for moving tons of cargo, trucks are far more expensive per mile. Rail is the cheapest way to move cargo bay far - we just need to build more rail. I live in an area where I am just 14 miles from a city and could have gotten there in 14 miles 100+ years ago but for the fact that the government ripped the rail out and replaced it with slow af dirt road. Now I have to go around the mountains and it takes 2.5 hours... Trains could have solved so many problems. It could even fix the highway problems. Imagine for personal transportation a bunch of small rollercoasters. Those could get you anywhere you want to go and take up a fraction of the space.
>no mention of automation
see
>Self-driving cars are a bullshit solution to a non-problem.
Dumbass
>>Self-driving cars are a bullshit solution to a non-problem.
Wrong, because you can't take the train everywhere .
You can't take a self-driving car everywhere either.
Yes, but you can take a regular car almost everywhere, and if self driving becomes good enough you can take a self driving car almost everywhere too.
You just start driving it, dumbass. The government will never let a self driving car be made without a backup manual drive mode for human operators to take over.
>BUT YES THEY WOULD BECAUSE OF LOBBYI-
then why is steer by wire still illegal
Yes, because you can't automate a self-driving car. They're garbage. Rail is fully automated.
When will you europoors realize that building rail isn’t feasable in the US? We’re too big, too spread out, like your mothers legs
>can't build rail that is far cheaper than anything to construct
>can spend half a trillion on the national highway system
k
Now make this post again but with highway passenger throughput vs railway throughput
There's no competition - railway is much, much higher. Just one railcar can move over 12,500 tons. A semi truck? 40 tons. So the question of which can move more people is obvious.
cars
>can drive where I want when I want (freedom)
>can load up my car with my personal items
rails
>have to sit next to people (probably poor if they’re not in a car)
>homeless people shitting in the cars
>can only take a very limited amount of stuff with me, one suitcase probably
>runs on a schedule at inconvenient times
>cities aren’t built with enough density for a rail to make sense, you’d have to exit the rail and take a bus to get home (even more poor people)
That would be horrible for the environment and general quality of life
>can drive where I want when I want (freedom)
you don't have the freedom to walk, anywhere.
I do, it’s just not very practical because all of our stores and businesses and homes are so spread out. A store that’s only a few minutes away by car could be a 20 minute trek by foot. Even still, most US cities require sidewalks to be built next to all roads that aren’t highways so it’s still possible.
Bros the figures coming up lately shows me the us government us broken and corrupt.
Over a trillion dollars to fix infrastructure. That is just too much money.
Cars and trains have totally different use cases. It makes more sense to compare trains to airplanes.
For most uses, there is no viable alternative for cars.
Yes there is a viable alternative - trains. All transport could be moved underground quickly. You could have smaller rail cars that could move goods to individual homes. You wouldn't need mail delivery or anything else except for huge things; it could all be automated.
This only works in big cities, in smaller cities you need cars to get anywhere. And the underground thing is way to expensive.
You could have small roller coaster style rails that move product around. That wouldn't be too expensive.
not anon, but isn't china losing a shitton of money because of their high speed rail network?
the only downside of not using rail is the environment, but trains aren't that sustainable because they use the same batteries as electric cars, so might as well go for electric cars than trains in my opinion. Or go for slow trains that use electricity connected to wires above the train, but why the fuck would you ride a train if it's 500x slower than flying by air, and america is so huge that if you wanted to fly from state to state, that's easily 8 hours to 40 hours of driving, and trains are not that much faster than cars (unless they are high speed, which requires batteries because there isn't a good way of powering high speed trains yet, and directly powering trains might be possible but probably very expensive, and look at how expensive china's high speed trains are, they aren't even breaking even).
In a socialist dream, a train track would go through everyone's home. Everyone's homes would be owned by government as they would have no choice but to comply.
You mean like other utilities?
>I just wish we went with some self-driving tiny helicopter instead or something.
This is actually a much easier problem to solve than Level 5 self-driving. There's less stuff to hit in the air, and path finding is easier. Since it's a new system that offers something tangibly better than avoiding the mild inconvenience of driving themselves, people will be more willing to put up with real inconveniences as the technology establishes itself, like limited coverage, not operating during bad weather, etc. Unlike self-driving cars, I do think we'll see drone package delivery by 2030. After that, it's only a matter of time before those drones start being used to transport humans too.
True they're not the best solution but that's just where the research went I guess because we already have such a big car culture and the infrastructure for them. It's easier to convince politicians to allow self driving cars than to convince them to build/allow building tons of tracks for trains.
Americans built a society around the use of cars, they've fucked themselves beyond repair
And yuropoors fucked themselves by having less affordable housing than Americans despite being crammed in like sardines in a can all while being completely reliant on scheduled public transportation like good little sheep. It'll be hilarious when Russians destroy any of your lines and now you can't do anything because you're poorgays without cars
>less affordable housing than Americans despite being crammed in like sardines
yeah because having less supply of something usually drives the price down, Mr. PhD in economics, eh?
Housing in. Europe is more expensive because it's more people living on less space you midwit.
Not even gonna adress the rest of your lost because you obviously don't understand the basics.
Cope yuropoor you have a fundamental problem. But keep riding that bus you fucking gay lmfao
>lmfao
Not an argument yuropoor. Glad to see your retardation is in full force today
seeth
>Americans built a society around the use of cars
Which we did without AI driving cars. AI driving cars is pointless bullshit.
lul stupidest comment in the thread, get your driving licence kid
>muh AI
>muh self-driving
>muh taste of musk semen
>muh stupid gay highway system
>muh shitting my pants
>muh gay hotels for homos
Suck an AI-powered dick gay.
seeeeeeeeeeeethhheee let the seethe flow through you!
Retard. I bet $10k you solely consume onions
My own personal vehicle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing a cramped enclosed area with the dregs of society that smell like shit and blast moron music
This is exaxtly the kind of low IQ post I'd expect from a train rider.
A train doesn't go from my home to my work.
Neither does a self-driving car.
What are you talking about? Autopilot already exists and is usable for about 80% of the drive to work.
In other words, it doesn't go from your home to work.
And it can't be trusted.
The other 20% is where you die or murder a pedestrian
Preferably both.
b-but what will Goldstein Motor Company do when people start using trains?
I fucking hate driving and I fucking hate cars. Self-driving cars are for me because our society is retarded and built around the motorized garden gnome.
I don't hate either, but I don't like owning/maintaining/having responsibilities/costs associated with it. However I do like the independence of not having to interact with other humans when I travel.
So self driving is great for that aspect, atleast a self driving car that can be called from one city block to another.
I'm nearing 40yo and I've probably own a car for less than one year of my life total when you add up the time I've had the 3 cars I've ever owned. Self driving cars are insidious, will devastate natural habitat (shirt shelf life of major components requiring resource extraction) concentrate corporate wealth and strip citizens of their rights.
They will never design your cities or infrastructure for your benefit. Self driving cars will not change that. It will usher in even more dystopia.
Your a fool to push for this meme. If it happens great but it should happen as a natural result of innovation among the private sector and you should be VERY wary of it all.
The keyword here is "commercially", and while Carmack is a really smart person he still a techie. There are some legislative issues that will prevent commercial adoption of fully autonomous vehicles.
I honestly think that while they might be commercially sold, adoption would be non existant, after all who pays for when the car inevitable crashes or murders someone.
>To me it seems obvious that you need general artificial intelligence for level 5, and I doubt that general artificial intelligence will be created by 2030.
holy shit you're a fucking retarded, never post about this again.
In a city built specifically for modern driving AI it probably would work really well. In the US where we have the absolute worst city and road infrastructure known to mankind, we're nowhere close with current tech
Maybe he knows it's bullshit, but he stands to make more than $10k by publicly appearing to be confident in the technology.
Level 5 self driving means it can drive anywhere that a human driver can without intervention. It's basically a robot chauffeur. This, to me, means that it would pass the Nilsson/employment test for AGI. I just don't see it happening. Even the basic prerequisite of being able to accurately understand dictated instructions in every human language won't be achieved by 2030.
>Level 5 self driving means it can drive anywhere that a human driver can without intervention
Good luck driving on the beaches that we are allowed to drive on here. You would have to start the AI over from scratch as it has nothing to do with driving on roads.
the tires will deflate automatically
it also has to be able to see the big dips in the sand, the people who could be lying in the sand, where there is soft sand, how to navigate the inflow/outflow creeks. There are also no rules in some situations. You just have to communicate with the other 4wds.
why drive on a beach?
The beach is a great example.
I was thinking about big events like a Renaissance Fair, where there is signage on the highway indicating which exit to take (i.e. not the one your GPS tells you to), traffic patterns are temporarily changed, and you park in a field following the directions/gestures of random guys wearing high-viz vests. The car is going to have to be able to read signs and understand gestures, and it's also going to have to be able to know which signs and gestures apply to it and which ones are not applicable.
>why drive on a beach?
It doesn't matter. If people can drive on the beach, and the car can't, then it's not a Level 5 self-driving car.
carmack is old and his fame kruggered him into thinking he is an authority on anything other than his shitty games
elon lied about that too like 5 years ago (promising fully autonomous self driving cars appearing last year afair).
ofc its bullshit and you cant predict a discovery, but in this case he's also predicting an EXTREMELY RAPID indursty adoption, which means he's a complete retard
give me $10000 instead, and it better be rn
>To me it seems obvious that you need general artificial intelligence for level 5
That's because you're retarded.
this train guy is fucking annoying. I'm really fucking glad he isn't ever getting his way.
Train-obsessed people are almost always Americans who fantasize about Europe having this dreamy railroad system that is better than cars in every possible way.
I'm European, been to multiple European countries, and I will always prefer driving to taking the train, even if the trip is hours long.
Same here, lived most my life in Russia and last decade in Germany. Fuck trains.
The ONLY time I'd choose a train is if there is a multiple-days trip and it goes directly to where I want.
Russia? Trains would be a must because of distance. In Germany driving is really expensive because of Russia haha
> Trains would be a must because of distance
That's why I say that multi-day trips that have a direct connection between the cities is the only situation where I would choose a train. That's what they are for. I wouldn't, however, go to a next city in a train, since it's more convenient to drive there and then within the city/town itself instead of public transport with multiple hops.
European here, can confirm. Public transport only works well in certain large cities. You need a very dense network both in terms of stations and in terms of time slots so that it approaches the convenience of a car.
Everywhere else and even Europeans prefer cars to public transport. I live in a 30k town and I cannot imagine my life without a car.
Euro Power hour!
Yup, even when lefty murricans fetishize our trains, they're shit outside of big city areas.
Takes longer, costs more and you're forced to sit next to smelly, loud or possibly even criminal people.
The future of transportation is electric self-driving cars. A mix of personally owned vehicles and car pools (think uber but without a driver). This is totally obvious. The only question is whether it will happen by 2030s, 2040s.. not if but when.
The future of transportation is warp portals.
warp portals violate basic laws of physics and will never happen
self-driving cars are coming, it is a question of a few decades at most
>warp portals violate basic laws of physics
>what are wormholes?
>what are wormholes?
Cannot transfer any information through them.
aren't wormholes just areas where space is contracted compared to the surrounding space? why wouldn't you be able to transfer information through them? wouldn't they act exactly like normal space?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%3D_EPR
Read this for cutting edge research into (Planck-scale) wormholes. Entanglement and Planck-scale wormholes are equivalent. And since entanglement cannot be used for FTL, neither can wormholes.
Entanglement is literally only used for FTL information travel, that's the paint.
Study one entangled particle and you instantly across any distance know the inverse about the other.
Dude it's literally space-time travel.
I mean its possible to make something look like AGI if you throw enough processing power at it there might even be some significant advancement if the physics promises of single electron transistor or optical computing come true in the next couple years but then again I think its far likelier that we will have a WW.
>listen to me, i'm an expert in the field even though i don't even know that J3016 isn't a certification but just a classification any manufacturer can freely apply to his own product
you do not know what he knows about J3016, not possible to deduce that from his tweet
he thought it provided clear conditions for a bet which it does not at all
i dunno, i'm just not that keen on the idea of using a form of transport that might choose to kill me if someone pushing a baby in a pram steps out in front of me
>10k dollars in 2030
hehe, basically betting on pizza.
He is smart, but he is not uniquely smart. There are many people as smart or smarter than him. He is given more of a voice because he was in the right place at the right time and worked hard. Doom is a pretty simple concept. Some physics, geometry, and cycling through 2d pictures and you have doom.
more of this in the future
technology related because logic gates
I'll bet they'll so many fucking people in the country, it'll be quicker to get out and walk.
This crackpot shit is the kind of "fiction" that was being shilled in the 50's and 60's, I mean who remembers the shit that was being "predicted" then by so called "intellectuals" and "ITK" retards. Fuck off with this bullshit.
Pic-related is kinda of, what we got told versus what we actually got.
Shinto Gate stronk
We might get there in 8 years. But that's assuming people discover an approach which isn't just chucking data at neural networks and going by probabilities and hoping for the best. More data and computation will only get you so far.
Humans don't reason about the road thinking 99% probability for a stop sign, but also 0.5% for it to be 'do not enter' and so on. The basic building blocks (like detection, location) all need to be deterministic and explainable (even if that means some tiny bit of the output is 'no idea what that is'. If people want to use neural nets it should be specifically to take those high level deterministic inputs (like cars, signs, etc) and output movement decisions. This would specifically be used to handle edge cases when a highly specific movement algorithm (that's explainable) doesn't know what to do.
At the moment, they've got it backwards, the neural nets are giving their best guesses for all the objects and happy paths. And then they're throwing more data and computation and hand holding to trying to 'solve' the edge cases. But there will always be weird edge cases that trick the neural networks (like some guy puts his bike on the back of his car, the neural net thinks it's a cyclist pointed sideways attached. The 'solution' of course is to get the neural network to treat both as one object... but really, are they? If some idiot puts his bicycle upright with a few ropes on the roof of his car, is that yet another 'special case' you need to teach the neural network to ignore? And what then if ropes snap on the freeway and now you have a bicycle in front of you?
tl;dr problems at the lower levels with neural networks mean that retards will be forever be hunting for edge cases, rather than going with a new architecture which is sane.
the neural network doesn't think at all use different terminology, it's just a confused mess and I bet you aren't an expert anyway
Perhaps the better approach would be working with a diffrent sensor other than visual
Why do people think that because a person is smart at something that translates to other fields?
He's a fucking nerd; I would trust Carmack making predictions regarding game engines, 3d graphics programming and VR. He has no clue about urbanism or transit.
His name is literally carmake
I trust him on those cars being out by then but I don't trust those cars
Self driving cars will happen. They don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans statistically.
The edge and failure cases for self driving cars will look very stupid to us humans, but if they statistically outperform humans in terms of safety then it kind of doesn't matter. Human drivers fuck up all the time, everyday to the point where there is an entire industry devoted to handling it, auto insurance. If we held ourselves to the standard that we hold self driving cars to, we would never let ourselves drive.
If your standard for self driving is navigating through a slum in Sri Lanka then maybe we are further off. But for standard American and European roads and cities its certainly achievable.
BMW Group has test cars that generate 2 gb of data every 5 seconds. They have the biggest Openshift cluster ever created, entirely dedicated to autonomous driving. I guess money is being spent, if it's gonna happen until 2030 idk.
>To me it seems obvious that you need general artificial intelligence for level 5,
You have no frame of reference to make that claim. You're a layman
Because the algorithm used for self driving cars is the same as the algorithm for path finding in 3d videogames op.
I think its tge D* algorithm i believe
It is not a path finding issue, the automated driving is the problem
Well the D* algorithm finds the path while avoding obstacles
Self-driving cars will replace taxi and shuttle services. They are a long way from becoming mainstream simply because of cost.
Human wetware is simply much cheaper and has less points of failure versus a neural network with tons of sensors and redundancies to make a self-driving car "safe" on most roads.
He has insider knowledge and is tracking progress as things are developed.
Its VERY likely that he has access to insider build of Tesla's FSD.
Holy shit Scott Adams is TINY
There's something about this pic that kind of unsettles me when looking left to right then back again.
Guys help me out before I have nightmares about this shit.
>Carmack is obviously a very smart dude
Yes, he and his (or was it Romero's) got lucky 25-30 years ago and have been living off of it ever since.
It doesn't mean he's going to be right all the time.
>captcha: MADP4
I want high speed trains instead, fuck this world.
keyword: in major cities, this means just a few streets in a few major cities would be enough, and it's gonna be basically the same as a tramway system
If it's confined to a few streets, it's not SAE Level 5.
You are not allowed to comment on the United States’ transportation system if you have never been to the United States
I think he might be right. The autonomous vehicle need only be deployed in the Bay Area and LA to be available for commercial passenger use in major cities. If we built high-fidelity maps of these locations, plus cooperated with local government on updating them with construction projects and accidents, I think this could be accomplished.
Confined to a few cities is not Level 5.
even bad ai is better than drunk driver
>Carmack is obviously a very smart dude,
Being a good game programmer doesn't mean your have informed opinions about anything other than game programming.
How is this not obvious to you? Are you actually retarded? KYS.
He's also a rocket engineer, virtual reality developer, software developer, etc.
He's got more experience under him than you realize.
None of that shit confers knowledge of self-driving cars.
Why not? Self driving vehicle is mainly about creating an accurate vector space for a car to navigate through. This is exactly where his experience lies. So he understands where his specialites can be applied more accurately than you think he can't.
>Why not?
Rockets aren't self driving cars.
Virtual reality is not self driving cars.
Generic "software development" is not self-driving cars.
Game development is not self-driving cars.
Carmack has absolutely zero experience or expertise with self-driving cars. Why do I need to explain this to you? Why are you so fucking dumb?
It means you're a fucking retard.
Carmack wasn't born a rocket engineer, video game programmer nor a vr engineer. He built up his skill sets as a child by programming on computers, learning skill sets in his college years, honing them by making his software as a young adult, and throughout his adult life, continued to learn/advance his skill sets to apply towards all sorts of engineering challenges.
I can tell you're a child, since you've never worked in any field, you don't understand that one skillset is usable in other fields, or multiple skill sets from multiple fields can be used for a different field entirely.
>Carmack wasn't born a rocket engineer,
The only reason he can call himself a rocket engineer is because he has demonstrated some proficiency in that role. He has not demonstrated any proficiency in the area of self driving cars. With respect to self driving cars, he is not an expert and his opinions are dirt.
>The only reason he can call himself a rocket engineer is because he has demonstrated some proficiency in that role
No, the reason he's a rocket engineer is because he built rocket engines and rockets. He applies the skilset from game developer to rocket engineering as a software developer and as an engineering skilset he learned while developing the game Doom.
So by developing the game doom, I can become a rocket engineer? Fascinating, didn't know going to space was as easy as programming in damage values for the baron of hell fireball attack.
No, by being smart/resilient/innovative/actively learning, you can become a rocket engineer, or any engineering profession.
Being a retard like you, you wont even be able to make a small javascript game like a flappy bird, let alone anything else. Your life's achievement will amount to nothing more than bitching about other people doing things and complaining that they shouldn't be able to do things because you can't do things
Which part of developing the game doom provides "active learning" of rocket engineering?
The part where people are actively learning new things instead of bitching.
So, nothing? I'm surprised you didn't manage to slip in some cope about how learning gender studies doesn't count as actively learning new things
Flappybird made a lot of money
I can tell you're autistic.
You know having set up a computer vision system for my employer I do see that there is a lot of potential im thst fiend as far as auditing inventory goes.
Isn't obsession with trains a sign of autism? Why are we even talking about this shit?
Its a sign of communism. Commies are trying to push the narratives that cars are bad, capitalism is bad, roads are bad, rich people bad, etc.
Its nonsensical ideology stemming from envy/jealousy.
>everything i don't like is nonsensical ideology
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST NOT PURCHASE A VEHICLE
>SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD CARS
>BUY THE GAS
>PAY FOR CAR INSURANCE
>YOU WANT TO BE RICH DON'T YOU?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Self driving cars would never work just on the legal problems alone.
>Carmack is obviously a very smart dude, so why is he so confident about self-driving cars?
This year nvidia is going to unveil 3090ti performance at the 3080 MSRP. By 2030 there will be 4090 tier compute within every SOC.
We could have self driving cars now, but they'd literally require 2kw of gaming rig in order to properly drive the AI.
Well no
Cards that are specifically built for AI don't consume as much power.
While it is true that the 3090 did get close to high end workstation cards in benchmarks those workstation cards don't consume as much power
Good luck making an AI being able to drive in such an environment.
We need self driving cars because people are shitty drivers
I predict that by 2030 some company will bribe/lobby/lie some major cities into accepting what they're marketing as "Self Driving™" cars onto the streets and following some absolutely horrifying incidents (both accidental due to shitty code/design and non-accidental by hackers/terrorists) they'll be banned in most nations and stuck in bureaucratic regulation hell for decades afterwards