XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: YourName@YourISP.com
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article , chrysicat@gmail.com says...
> > On 1/23/2014 5:14 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > > In article , rex
> > > wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >>> Then there are facts like many roads simply not having markings for the
> > >>> computer to see, or having duplicate markings where the road has been
> > >>> changed for some reason.
> > >>
> > >> But with those, the computer can use the database
> > >> and knows how the road should be marked.
> > >
> > > Again, a MASSIVE task to try and keep it updated. What's the point in
> > > having a car that can drive itself, when you then have to relgate
> > > millions of people to doing boring and pointless data entry.
> > >
> > Did you say 'data entry'? Wow...I could have a job again! It's really
> > not that boring for some people...folks like me were capable of doing it
> > virtually on autopilot!
>
> Humans don't need a "database" to get from point a to point b in a car.
> Why would the car? The only way that self-driving cars are ever going
> to be viable is if they can navigate using the same cues that humans do.
Humans either know where they're going (even if only roughly) because
they've been there before or vaguely know the area, otherwise they use
a map.
A car doesn't know anything and *HAS* to rely on the computer map. You
can't tell a car that you want to go to "point B" and then have it just
drive randomly around trying to find that location ... it's anyone's
guess how it would find locations which don't have any kind of signage
or street number.
Potentially a computer could learn (and in some testing already has)
learn a regular route by having the human drive it first, but that kind
of defeats the purpose of self-driving cars since most people do not go
to the same location all the time.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
