LA TIMES: Walt Disney World plans to deploy driverless shuttles

[MisterPenguin]

That's the thing, no one really knows until presented with the situation and at the point the brain makes about a zillion calculations and then might even find a third alternative that wasn't included in the computer program. No one really knows how one would react, but, I think that most would choose not to plow down a group of people. We all have some degree of humanity, I would hope. It's not the dying, it's the lack of choice that bothers me. And would the car even know that there were a bunch of people there and not just some random bushes until after it had pointed itself in that direction. And would you rather have the computer make that decision so you can walk away and have a "machine" to blame. Something that you still have to live with because you made the decision to ride in a car that you were not in control of. It seems to me that there would be unlimited algorithm's in every movement that is made. The car is not going to get sued, you or the manufacturer will be spending out the cash. You can bet that before you can incorporate that technology into your life, you will be signing off the right to go after the manufacturer for damages. The fine print will need the Hubble Telescope strength Microscope to be able to read.

Well, if a human made a choice in a no-win situation, what do we do with that human? Charge them with manslaughter? Or do we judge they had no good choice and let them go free?

You do the same with the computer.

The only difference is, when a human is in that type of situation, we can, after the fact, make an informed decision of what was the lesser of two evils. Once we do that, we can tell all the A.I.s that if they're in a similar situation, here is the lesser of two evils and then do that. And they will.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Well, if a human made a choice in a no-win situation, what do we do with that human? Charge them with manslaughter? Or do we judge they had no good choice and let them go free?

You do the same with the computer.

The only difference is, when a human is in that type of situation, we can, after the fact, make an informed decision of what was the lesser of two evils. Once we do that, we can tell all the A.I.s that if they're in a similar situation, here is the lesser of two evils and then do that. And they will.

OK, I guess.... but, as we continue to take the responsibility for our decisions off our shoulders and find more and more scapegoats to pile it on, we just get less and less human and much more willing to separate ourselves from humanity. The problem with making the crowd choice on our own is that we have to live with that for the rest of our lives and that is with us no matter what choice we let the computer make. I can't speak for you, but, I would much rather be dead then feeling that my action, either directly or indirectly via computer, caused the end of lives of other innocent bystanders. So, I guess that answers your question about what I would do. However, I feel pretty confident that the computer would go the crowd route. It has no human emotions and in that situation would take the direction of the least damage to itself.

 

[s8film40]

It's funny how resistant people are to this technology. I drive almost everyday for work and when I see the absolutely stupid stuff people do, I think this can't come soon enough. The sooner this is widely implemented the more lives will be saved. Yes sure they've had a handful of accidents, but those numbers are far smaller than human drivers. There are tens of thousands of accidents every day with about 100 people dying each day. If you are opposed to this you want people to die, it's as simple as that.

 

[larryz]

The inherent problem with AI is that each solution to a possible incident must be learned. Therefore, an incident must occur in order to be learned from with additional incidents needed to refine the learned algorithm.

 

[21stamps]

Just wanted to stop in and rave about the CT6. I’m driving one for the weekend... super cruise is AWESOME!

Kudos to GM.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It's funny how resistant people are to this technology. I drive almost everyday for work and when I see the absolutely stupid stuff people do, I think this can't come soon enough. The sooner this is widely implemented the more lives will be saved. Yes sure they've had a handful of accidents, but those numbers are far smaller than human drivers. There are tens of thousands of accidents every day with about 100 people dying each day. If you are opposed to this you want people to die, it's as simple as that.

I don't blanket resist technology, heck I'm using some of it right now. Something that you find a lot of people my age afraid to touch. However, if technology will not make me happier then I am now, I see no real need to embrace it. It is one thing to type on a computer when all you are actually going to hurt is someones feelings as opposed to something that seems to scream flaws with possible deadly outcomes.

If we cannot do the act of driving in a manner that prevents death and we are supposed to be intelligent life forms then how can we expect a machine to give half a damn about the loss of anyone. I'm sure one day this will be what is going on. I didn't watch George Jetson for years to not see the future, but, there are an awful lot of things to work out and if we, as an aforementioned life form, cannot get basics correct in a way that prohibits 100's of people from dying per day, how is anyone programming a pile of wires and circuit boards to think of everything among the millions of possible scenario's? If I live long enough, which I won't, for it to be a completely workable technology I will become a follower, just not now.

 

[21stamps]

It's funny how resistant people are to this technology. I drive almost everyday for work and when I see the absolutely stupid stuff people do, I think this can't come soon enough. The sooner this is widely implemented the more lives will be saved. Yes sure they've had a handful of accidents, but those numbers are far smaller than human drivers. There are tens of thousands of accidents every day with about 100 people dying each day. If you are opposed to this you want people to die, it's as simple as that.

Pretty much every ‘newer’ car has autonomous features in it currently. People are already using the technology, but for the general public we’re just not to the point of letting the cars drive us completely alone for the majority of the time.

The public will continue to be eased into it with the more and more features that they have, and enjoy, and realize how good they are

 

[s8film40]

I don't blanket resist technology, heck I'm using some of it right now. Something that you find a lot of people my age afraid to touch. However, if technology will not make me happier then I am now, I see no real need to embrace it. It is one thing to type on a computer when all you are actually going to hurt is someones feelings as opposed to something that seems to scream flaws with possible deadly outcomes.

If we cannot do the act of driving in a manner that prevents death and we are supposed to be intelligent life forms then how can we expect a machine to give half a damn about the loss of anyone. I'm sure one day this will be what is going on. I didn't watch George Jetson for years to not see the future, but, there are an awful lot of things to work out and if we, as an aforementioned life form, cannot get basics correct in a way that prohibits 100's of people from dying per day, how is anyone programming a pile of wires and circuit boards to think of everything among the millions of possible scenario's? If I live long enough, which I won't, for it to be a completely workable technology I will become a follower, just not now.

The thing is we are already at the point where this has been developed for years and it has reached a point where it's proven to be better than human drivers. Several years ago I would agree it needs work, but now we've reached a point where it's safer and more reliable. Of course a big factor in this is that at the same time humans are becoming less safe and reliable. More and more people are using their phones while driving more often and it gets worse every day.

Pretty much every ‘newer’ car has autonomous features in it currently. People are already using the technology, but for the general public we’re just not to the point of letting the cars drive us completely alone for the majority of the time.

The public will continue to be eased into it with the more and more features that they have, and enjoy, and realize how good they are

I agree the public will be eased into this. It seems some people think this will take a decade or more to happen and I think it's going to happen a lot faster. Lots of people are resistant to give up control and if that were the only factor alone it would take some time for people to get used to it. The financial aspect is whats going to really propel this pretty quickly. It enables ride share networks to operate very efficiently and with that comes very different ways that we pay for transportation. For some they will find that they simply don't need to be paying high prices for a monthly car payment when they can use an app to call up a car to take them wherever they need when they need it. Additionally for those who purchase cars the ability to put their car into a network allows them to pay for their car or even make a profit. Think about it, in a few years when shopping for a car would you rather pay a few hundred a month for your car or have one that makes a profit while you're not using it.

 

[danlb_2000]

FWIW, I don't think the claim is (or ever will be) that driverless cars will eliminate accidents; they will just lessen the number of them. There are scenarios where a human driver would be the safer option, but there are far more where the automated option is the preferable method.

The problem is that people aren't going to look at the numbers that say driverless caused fewer accidents then human drivers. Any time there is an accident with a driverless car, a lot of people are only going to see that as a failure of the technology. Eventually people may start looking at things a different way, but I think it will be some time before that happens.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The thing is we are already at the point where this has been developed for years and it has reached a point where it's proven to be better than human drivers. Several years ago I would agree it needs work, but now we've reached a point where it's safer and more reliable. Of course a big factor in this is that at the same time humans are becoming less safe and reliable. More and more people are using their phones while driving more often and it gets worse every day.

I agree the public will be eased into this. It seems some people think this will take a decade or more to happen and I think it's going to happen a lot faster. Lots of people are resistant to give up control and if that were the only factor alone it would take some time for people to get used to it. The financial aspect is whats going to really propel this pretty quickly. It enables ride share networks to operate very efficiently and with that comes very different ways that we pay for transportation. For some they will find that they simply don't need to be paying high prices for a monthly car payment when they can use an app to call up a car to take them wherever they need when they need it. Additionally for those who purchase cars the ability to put their car into a network allows them to pay for their car or even make a profit. Think about it, in a few years when shopping for a car would you rather pay a few hundred a month for your car or have one that makes a profit while you're not using it.

You may or may not be correct. Unfortunately my crystal ball is in the shop. I hope you are wrong because what is sounds like is that the need for humans is slowly dissolving, which I find upsetting. I also think that you may be taking the hype a little to literately. Manufactures are not going to say... well, we have a few bugs, but, with only a few hundred more deaths we should have the bugs all out.

In all likelihood, it is in the future, but, back in the 60's we all thought that the turbo engine was going to be in all cars. (heck you could travel on rubbing alcohol). Don't see to many of those around these days. Not everything, no matter how promising it seem will get past the public, or more importantly the potential destruction of the classic automobile industry. Oil companies finished off the turbo. Whatever the case I don't think I will see it in my lifetime. Oh, yea... we were also going to have this tiny box in our basements that ran our lights, heated our homes and cooled them in the summer. The little black nuclear box in all homes by the 90's. I actually wish that one had proved to be doable.

 

[s8film40]

You may or may not be correct. Unfortunately my crystal ball is in the shop. I hope you are wrong because what is sounds like is that the need for humans is slowly dissolving, which I find upsetting. I also think that you may be taking the hype a little to literately. Manufactures are not going to say... well, we have a few bugs, but, with only a few hundred more deaths we should have the bugs all out.

In all likelihood, it is in the future, but, back in the 60's we all thought that the turbo engine was going to be in all cars. (heck you could travel on rubbing alcohol). Don't see to many of those around these days. Not everything, no matter how promising it seem will get past the public, or more importantly the potential destruction of the classic automobile industry. Oil companies finished off the turbo. Whatever the case I don't think I will see it in my lifetime. Oh, yea... we were also going to have this tiny box in our basements that ran our lights, heated our homes and cooled them in the summer. The little black nuclear box in all homes by the 90's. I actually wish that one had proved to be doable.

Yeah, the thing is it’s already here. As soon as the regulations which are already in the works are in place anyone who wants one can own one. Every Tesla on the road right now has the capability, it just needs to be switched on. Those who don’t like it don’t have to buy it or use it. Just because menial tasks like driving can be done by machines doesn’t mean humans are useless. It’s one less thing for people to do while focusing on other things. You could do work on your commutes or spend time with your family (the ultimate road trip). There’s incentive for manufacturers to push the technology, it increases the value of cars. Ford has already said they see greater value in creating a ride share business model versus selling cars outright. After all it makes sense, is it better to sell a car for $20k or put it out on the streets where it can make a few thousand each month.

This isn’t some far out dream, like the other things you mention. Its not a flying car or a nuclear power box. It’s out there being tested and used right now. It works and it’s on the way.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Yeah, the thing is it’s already here. As soon as the regulations which are already in the works are in place anyone who wants one can own one. Every Tesla on the road right now has the capability, it just needs to be switched on. Those who don’t like it don’t have to buy it or use it. Just because menial tasks like driving can be done by machines doesn’t mean humans are useless. It’s one less thing for people to do while focusing on other things. You could do work on your commutes or spend time with your family (the ultimate road trip). There’s incentive for manufacturers to push the technology, it increases the value of cars. Ford has already said they see greater value in creating a ride share business model versus selling cars outright. After all it makes sense, is it better to sell a car for $20k or put it out on the streets where it can make a few thousand each month.

This isn’t some far out dream, like the other things you mention. Its not a flying car or a nuclear power box. It’s out there being tested and used right now. It works and it’s on the way.

Turbo's were already here as well. That means nothing. They are only here in strictly a introductory sense. Time will tell if people are willing to use them. You could be right... I don't ever see myself using them and I doubt I am the only one.

What other things are the going to concentrate on? Writing their will perhaps?

 

[s8film40]

Turbo's were already here as well. That means nothing. They are only here in strictly a introductory sense. Time will tell if people are willing to use them. You could be right... I don't ever see myself using them and I doubt I am the only one.

What other things are the going to concentrate on? Writing their will perhaps?

Most people are already pretty preoccupied in their cars as it is. Driving has already become a secondary thing for many people and that’s the real problem.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Most people are already pretty preoccupied in their cars as it is. Driving has already become a secondary thing for many people and that’s the real problem.

There is an element of truth to that for sure. Let's make a deal... all those brain dead's that feel that texting is the thing to do while they are driving, should use the driver-less cars. Me, I will continue to have my hands on the steering wheel to avoid getting run into by one of the rogue driver-less thingy's.

 

[mm121]

Didnt go through all 11 pages.

but the main place i could see these being useful would be for the shuttles that run inside some of the resorts and inside fort wilderness

areas where they'd be in a less traffic area and the only interaction they'd have with other cars would be other resort guests rather than out on major public roadways

 

[ScoutN]

Didnt go through all 11 pages.

You did not miss much.

 

[Pam Hates Penguins]

I won't trust these shuttles for nothing.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2018/03/ub...s-halted-after-pedestrian-killed-in-accident/

First the PeopleMover, now the PeopleKiller!

 

[mm121]

I won't trust these shuttles for nothing.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2018/03/ub...s-halted-after-pedestrian-killed-in-accident/

First the PeopleMover, now the PeopleKiller!

Interesting things to note about this that Uber is trying to cover up.

This car only had 1 roof lidar, and none around the perimiter. Their original prototype had 7 lidar around there permeter.

This car had 7 cameras, where the original had 20.

They settled with the family this week for who knows how much but it had to have been huge to get a persons life settled so quickly and quietly.

While this tech may be fine under "laboratory" conditions, we all know people do all kinds of unexpected and crazy things out on the roads. Things that i'm not sure we can program computers to always predict and react accordingly.

 

[Rumrunner]

Once again shows Disney will do anything to reduce labor cost.

Not realizing a friendly bus driver is an ambassador for Disney

Cast members don't seem to be that important to Disney anyway and now they can eliminate a few more of them from the payroll.

 

[Rumrunner]

If this will save me and my party having to wait for busses and the crowds associated with them and get me to the parks or other hotels more easily and quickly, then I am all for it. This looks to me like the horizontal elevator solution that they looked at a few years ago.

It is the first move in eliminating the buses from resorts to the parks. They will have a bunch of driverless Uber cars that they can charge you for transportation to the parks. The new resort parking fee is probably tied into a long term strategy to automate and find ways to eliminate as many jobs as possible and separate patrons from their money.