• Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    151
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I like driving. I hate all the shit modern car manufacturers put in modern cars. Sure they’re more efficient on fuel than older ones. But we should be able to have that without needing the car to be tracked and data collected, we have in the past.

    I feel like all these driver aids are also making people worse at driving. They need to do less, so they pay attention less.

    On top of that, can we ban touchscreens in cars? Physical buttons give physical feed back, you can feel for the button you want and press it without taking your eyes off the road. A touchscreen gives you none of that, and means you have to look away. It’s somewhat mitigated when they put buttons on the steering wheel, but not all buttons can fit in that spot.

    Sure some cars have google assistant, Siri or Alexa. But I actually get so frustrated when trying to tell my phone to navigate somewhere or just simply change the song. And that’s just the phone! The amount of times I have to pull over because it glitches out, or just fails to interpret some or all of what I’ve just said (sure it’s better than voice assistants used to be, but it still breaks regularly) is still too high. The amount of times I regularly tell it to do something, only to find it was still processing the activation voice command, and therefore was initialising the VA screen, and not listening to a word I said after the initial activation is infuriating.

    I love technology, but the technology has no place in cars if it detracts or distracts from the act and safety of actually driving the car.

    /Rant.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 year ago

      On top of that, can we ban touchscreens in cars? Physical buttons give physical feed back, you can feel for the button you want and press it without taking your eyes off the road. A touchscreen gives you none of that, and means you have to look away. It’s somewhat mitigated when they put buttons on the steering wheel, but not all buttons can fit in that spot.

      That’s, a damn good point.

    • bleistift2@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      A touchscreen gives you none of that, and means you have to look away

      That’s the reason why I don’t like listening to music on smart phones. Want to skip a track? Fish the phone out of your pocket, turn the screen back on, find the skip button, tap it, wait a second until the garbage app acknowledges that you’ve pressed it, turn off screen, put it back.

      While on my 2000’s phone it’s just pressing one of the physical buttons.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Want to skip a track? Fish the phone out of your pocket, turn the screen back on, find the skip button, tap it, wait a second until the garbage app acknowledges that you’ve pressed it, turn off screen, put it back.

        I had a HTC Touch Pro smartphone 15 years ago, and it had an optional headphone cable with buttons on it. You could use the buttons for pause/play, next track, and previous track, without having to get the phone out of your pocket.

        I never really saw something like that again for wired headphones. I did sometimes see headphones with buttons on the headphones themselves, but often they just have play/pause.

    • redline23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bruh, get a 2019+ Miata MX5. It solves 95% of what you are complaining about and it’s fun to drive.

      • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, I don’t have the budget for that, and here in Australia even an NB MX5 is over 10K- I’m actually currently looking at a 08’ fiesta XR4 (in other parts of the world that’s the 2L fiesta ST)

      • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know what you’re saying. My '23 Audi a3 has all the things you would want to buttons instead of touch screen only.

        I have huge gripes with bad infotainment systems, only reason I bought this new car was because I have no issues with it. I’m coming from old American cars. All the benefits of physical buttons with tactile feedback while being way more fun to drive.

    • Spaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. Let’s cut the middle man and force 100% automated driving. People can fuck in the back then with less likely to die than with humans with stupid cars without assistance driver aids. Driving is extremely dangerous and honestly I trust ai over other people (in USA).

      • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nah, I don’t know if AI will ever be 100% perfect, and I don’t want to trust it fully. Ai is human built, and it’s my personal belief that humans aren’t perfect, so AI will therefore never be perfect.

        Also, you will always want a qualified driver to be able to take over should some part of the car sensor systems fail.

        Sensors, unlike humans have a tendency to fail quickly, sometimes instantly, and even AI and autopilot can behave erratically if it gets bad or false inputs from bad sensors.

        It’s like in a airliner, autopilot even though at this point is pretty much practically capable of flying a plane completely from takeoff to landing, there will always be at least pilots on duty in the cockpit in order to account for unforseen circumstances and failures, even if they never actually fly the plane normally.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          AI doesn’t need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than your average human driver. Which, you know isn’t a very high bar…

          Comparing to an airplane pilot isn’t the same, a pilot goes through years of training to be able to fly passengers (Well beyond a dinky Cessna or whatever anyways) and you need years of experience on top before you are even considered by the big airlines

          A human driver can get a license in as little as a few days

          • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or hear me out… What if we had really long cars, sometimes chained together, put them on rails, and have just 1 human drive hundreds of them.

        • Spaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh seems I wasn’t clear. Sentient AI should drive us. Give it 30 years and I bet it will be close to the outcome if not on the cusp.

          • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even if we somehow manage to create a sentient AI, it will still have to rely on the information it receives from various sensors in the car. If those sensors fail, and it doesn’t have the information it needs to do the job, it could still make a mistake due to a lack of, or completely incorrect data, or if it manages to realise the data is erroneous it still could flatly refuse to work. I’d rather keep people in the loop as a final failsafe just in case that should ever happen.

            • wabafee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I see your point on this but when should an sentient AI be able to decide for itself? What makes it different from a human by this point? Human, us rely on sensors too to react to the world. We make mistakes also, even dangerous one. I guess we just want to make sure this sentient AI is not working against us?

              • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s why it’s layers of security. Humans have a natural instinct - usually we can tell if our eyesight is getting worse. And any mistake we make is most likely due to us not noticing something or reacting in time, something that the AI should be able to compensate for.

                The only time where this is not true when we have a medical episode, like a grand Mal or something. But everyone knows safety is always relative. And we mitigate that by redundancies. Sensors will have redundancies, and we ourselves are also an additional redundancy. Heck we could also put in sensors for the occupants to monitor their vitals. There is once again a question of privacy, but really that’s all we should need to protect against that.

                A sentient AI, not counting any potential issues with its own sentience, would have issues with sudden failed or poorly maintained sensors. Usually when a sensor fails, it either zeros out, maxes out, or starts outputting completely erratic results.

                If any of these results look the same as normal results, they can be hard for the AI to tell. We can reconcile those sensors with our own human senses and tell if they failed. A car only has its sensors to know what it needs to know, so if it fails, will it be able to know? Sure sensor redundancy helps, but there is still that minor chance that all the redundant sensors fail in a way that the AI cannot tell, and in that case the driver should be there to take over.

                Again I will refer to the system of an aircraft, as even if it’s a 1 in a billion chance there have been a few instances where this has happened and the autpilot nearly pitched the plane into the ground or ocean, and the plane was only saved due to the pilots takeover - in one of those cases it was due to a faulty sensor reporting that the angle of attack was too steeply pitched up, so the stick pusher mechanism tried to pitch the nose down, to save the plane, when infact it already was down. An autopilot, even an AI one will have no choice to trust its sensors as that’s the only mechanism it has.

                When it come to a faulty redundant sensor, the AI also has to work out which sensor to trust, and if it picks the wrong one, well you’re fucked. It might not be able to work out which sensor is more trustworthy…

                We keep ourselves safe with layered safety mechanisms and redundancy, including ourselves. So if anyone fails, the other can hopefully catch the failure.

                • wabafee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Wow, I appreciate the response must have taken awhile to write.