[TA]In a Race Between a Self-Driving Car and a Pro Race-Car Driver, Who Wins? - Page 16

It's in the details.


In 93, which was the year I was talking about. Senna essentially was stuck in the same chassis w/o the big Honda motor, and instead had a slug of a motor in the Ford. The Williams which were the dawn of the new Active Computer era had arrived and they were piloted by some WC's to boot. Senna's car was old school, minimal advances, low on power, hardly any aero, and completely unable to compete. Yet somehow on that day in the rain he took on the computers, and won. Cars back then were driven by harder men. It's the same relation to today's WRC. It's more car today than it was back then and in that context the Williams cars were light years ahead. There's no denying technology. However, all that techno wiz takes a back seat when it gets slippery and the technology becomes less important because it's less effective.


**Btw, bringing up space flight... is a bit strange too no? How long did it take for unmanned ships to land on the moon and how much of our GNP went into the development? I don't want auto AI racing humans for sure if you asked me. They should be used in the future for our buses and taxis which looks like an obviously better application.
Edited by tsm106 - 11/9/12 at 9:42pm

There's no need to deny... this article in and of itself is proof that it can't, yet. A professional racing driver is, now, better than a computer can be. That's what this article is about.

The reason for that is simple: The driver has more experience and contextual awareness than a computer is capable of drawing on with today's level of technology.

It's been said of Senna that he had an almost superhuman sense of where he could find grip on a track, what he needed to do to grab all he could, and how hard he could push it... before he ever experienced it. Face it, Senna was the best F1 driver of his age. It took Michael Schumacher 12 YEARS to break Senna's pole positions record.

The point with those kinds of exercises is that ALL the variables are calculated and accounted for before anything even happens. You don't pour $500 million into a space probe and just wing it. There is NO room for error and never can be, so there's never any need for on the fly calculations required by the probes themselves. They don't need contextual awareness in anything like as much as drivers do.

True, but it's not like they've developed in a void, separate of each other. As one marches on, so, invariably, does the other. Computers of that age couldn't drive cars of that age... but as the computer has become more sophisticated, so has the car. The principle is still the same, sure, but the computer has to work with more information.

And again, there is no replacement for experience.

Senna himself was described as turning the racetrack into a psychological battleground. He read people, he played with people, he manipulated people to his own advantage. No computer will be able to do that for a long while. That takes actual intelligence, not just sheer processing power.

To a certain extent, yes, but take for instance, again, Schumacher. He raced against Senna for four years, 1991 to 1994 (he was in second place behind Senna when Senna crashed at Imola... he watched it happen). Even he says Senna was the greatest F1 driver there ever was. And he says that today. After nearly 20 years of F1, he still says Senna was the best he's ever seen.

You lost me at "... racing engaging."
Edited by SkillzKillz - 11/9/12 at 9:37pm

So...they build a sophisticated robot car, use ground-breaking technology to race it at 115 MPH with passengers inside in a stunning exhibit, yet they didn't think enough to maybe put a camera inside to show us a video of it? We have to hear about it word-of-mouth instead.
Edited by aweir - 11/9/12 at 10:38pm

Ok. New scanario. Japan get's that full size moonwalking robot (whatever the heck it's name is) to play football, and it starts to compete at the college level. You tech people gonna root for it? Cuz if you do you've lost touch with the rest of humanity. That's all I can do to explain what I've tried to say already.

The robot would be more effective and efficient than the human.

Natch, that's why we build them.

But it takes time to develop a robot to the point where it surpasses human achievement. In motorsport, robots aren't that far along yet.

Look, the only reason it hasn't been done yet, is nobody can be bothered.

The military could afford it, the car companies are playing with it, but NO-ONE has bothered to invest the necessary money, yet.

Once someone does, it's 1-0 to the automata.

dunx

P.S. The WRC was ruined by the adoption of sprint events to cut costs, F1 by crippling the cars with "poor" tyres - who would buy Pirelli's for their own car if their F1 tyres are rubbish ? LOL

Gary Kasparov has commented about computer guided chess saying it doesn't revert lost positions and that best practices were possible with the elimination of friction between the human and computer elements. I presume due to the inability of humans to detect any computer's mimicless algorythm, it would be the computers which should conform to reach the maximum outcome.
If I can recall correctly, the hardness of abrading surfaces decrease friction, thus the champions will still hold their throne.
Also, I don't think fanciers of M. Schumacher pay any attention to his delinquencies. He was the prime infringer of active computer guided traction control in Senna's troubled year. His success corresponds more so with the big doper defamed this year in my opinion.

Necro