Shopping Cart  
Science Home
 Wine Glass  
      

Home     
   Fake Technology   
     Science Errors
 
 
9   ▼▼▼

 

Self-driving Is Absurd

 

Self-driving has a gullibility element much like QAnon. The inescapable fact is that computer programs can only deal with perceivable realities, not abstract realities. Knowledge is abstract. Driving without knowledge is always going to be a destructive process.

Since there is some realization of that problem with some persons, there has been an attempt to portray "artificial intelligence" as being equal to human intelligence. The same fraud exists in that concept—the fraud that abstract reality is never going to be possible in programable computers.

The method of approach proves the point. To program computers for self-driving, every possible scenario must be accounted for. Only perceivable realities require that degree of replicating. Abstract realities account for generalizations with a high degree of variation.

One of the differences between perceivable and abstract realities is prediction rather than replication. Complexities cannot be totally replicated, which requires prediction to account for the differences. Fakes try to incorporate such niceties as prediction into their pretense of artificial intelligence; but it is always a fraud. They can't even determine the requirements for predicting, let alone program it.

To allow autos to go down a street without those abilities to evaluate abstract realities and predict outcomes is a criminal standard by fraud criteria.

Absence Of Progress

There has been no significant progress in self-driving for several years. Yet self-driving is supposedly going to replace most of what exists for transportation in the next few months. The future is always where the magic lies in promoting frauds.

It is said that the process consists of driving around and collecting data. That isn't what intelligence is. Artificial intelligence is supposed to be superior to human intelligence and do what humans cannot do. Why not just teach autos how to drive and forget the collection of data? Humans don't have to drive around and look at the environment before driving. It shows that self-driving is nothing resembling human judgement. Driving taxes judgement. Computers will never meet the smallest part of the demand.

Removing carbon dioxide from the air is the pretext for some social fantasies, but self-driving has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. So why self-driving? The only explanation given is that it will reduce accidents. Some of us disagree, but regardless, no one spends that much money to reduce accidents. If that were really the purpose, there are better ways to save lives, like maybe drug prevention.

Self-driving has already hit a brick wall of contradictions with technology and hasn't made real progress for several years, while the fantasizing keeps going on. The brick wall is a combination of human minds not having the slightest ability to evaluate that much complexity, and closely related to it is that computers will never have enough space or power to begin to handle the human mind-mush.

The disconnect from reality is visible in recent claims that vehicles driving down the road are collecting data on the driving environment. To assume that such information should be stored and evaluated is insane. To move in that direction shows that there is no real concept of what self-driving is supposed to be. A vehicle which can't determine what to do in a new environment isn't self-driving. Such a procedure would be extremely dangerous. What happens when the information is not reliable? It will always be unreliable for many reasons. Why rely upon something that cannot be reliable? It could only increase accidents rather than decrease them.

There is a second reason for self-driving in a few cases. For those companies that hire drivers, supposedly an absence of drivers will save them money. But that doesn't explain why anyone else would want self-driving. Passengers don't have any more fun in automobiles than drivers have, and cheap entertainment doesn't justify the social upheaval being planned for self-driving.

So there is a new breed of liberals in silicone valley who want to put blue collar workers out of work, while conservatives want more blue collar workers. There has to be ulterior motives for that.

No matter how much pretending is done, nothing explains why self-driving is being promoted at all, and yet it gets to be more and more of a concern by the day, as if saving mankind were the purpose. There is a very strong force with the motives. It is obviously the same force and motive for the rest of the social fantasies: Incompetent corrupters need causes that are irrational to eliminate their conflict with reality. When screwing things up is the purpose, there is no wrong way to screw something up. So there is no wrong way to contrive social fantasies. It puts incompetents in control of our lives, where they would have little influence otherwise.

Rationalized Fakery

If self-driving were real, endless test would be needed under laboratory conditions. Instead, the only data available is the millions of miles chalked up following a white line.

When Detroit designs a new product, they produce endless measurements put on charts and graphs which can be evaluated for adequacy and improvements. When machines replace humans for driving, the only data is miles driven. It's rationalized fakery.

Why aren't the self-driving machines in laboratories measuring all parameters under all conditions with charts and graphs to be evaluated? There is no indication of such data existing. Of course engineers test components, but the working product is tested on roads only, as far as the public is told. The tests on the road are not even relevant until laboratory tests show the adequacy.

The total absence of a claim of laboratory measurements available to the public shows that the whole purpose is propaganda for glamorizing fake technology which never emerges from future claims. Incompetents are swamping society with fakery which replaces the truth about their corruption with imaginary godliness.

An example of the problem is the impossibility of artificial intelligence to use common sense judgement in evaluating situations. One of the complexities is to determine how hard to brake when moving. Self-driving vehicles cannot evaluate all of the conditions. So when they need to slow down, they don't get it right. They either brake too much or too little. Braking too much results in rear-end collisions, as other drivers don't expect the car in front of them to do some insane thing. More than half of the collisions with self-driving vehicles are rear-end collisions for this reason.

A major problem with artificial intelligence/self-driving is an inability to evaluate an outline, which results in collisions with trucks. What is an outline in an environment with infinite variations? Artificial intelligence cannot determine what an outline is when there are complexities. A large object like a truck does not have a definable size in two dimensional images. The size depends upon distance from observer.

Humans determine size and shape by integrating all properties in a three dimensional manner. Artificial intelligence is not even on that map, because humans are not programing such complexities. They simply show an image to compare to. It's less than a joke.

Some persons expect artificial intelligence to "surpass human capabilities", as if you could show a computer an image often enough and it would develop understanding from it. Even if computers could generate their own intelligence, which they never will, humans are not capable of evaluating, let alone designing, the integrated process involved in human understanding.

Fantasies Are Erasing Reality

The most significant fact about the modern social fantasies is not what they produce but what they erase, which is 5,000 years of developed knowledge. Self-driving is not a knowledge process; it is an erasure process. It erases the science and engineering that would be needed to create new technology and inserts whim on the fly for promoting fantasies.

Reducing Traffic

It appears that someone is assuming ride-sharing (like Uber) is reducing the number of autos being used, and self-driving is needed to make the process more efficient. It's the opposite. If people own their own vehicles, they reduce miles to the shortest distance between points, while ride-sharing requires extra miles going from one customer to the next. So there is more traffic on the streets, not less.

The process does not reduce the total number of autos, because an auto works just fine until it wears out, no matter how many years that takes. It takes so many autos per million miles regardless of who owns them.

The common sense problem (RT news)

Electric Vehicles

TOP     

     top       

 

Historical Origins
 
Gravity Waves
 
Relativity
 
Yellowstone
 
Water Origins
 
Self-Driving
 
Windmill Efficiency
 
Artificial Intelligence
 
Helicopter On Mars
 
IPCC
 
Peer Review
 
ATP Theory
 

     

 

 
 
 Home Page 
 
 Moral Philosophy 
 
 Political Philosophy 

 
 
 
 Sociology   
 
   News Pages   
 
   Religion   
 
   Detailed Pages