Fraud As Method Of Argument ▼   

February 17, 2022

The stated pretext for self-driving is to reduce accidents. There is no basis for the claim. Awareness while driving has always been the concern; but computers have no awareness.

Safety is determined under demanding conditions, which is where accidents occur, not following white lines and chalking up miles on freeways.

That's why self-driving vehicles hit emergency vehicles. The computers of self-driving vehicles can't evaluate the flashing lights of driving conditions, because there are too many confusing sources of flashing lights. Detectors cannot clarify surrounding context well enough to determine what the source is for flashing lights. The source could be turn signals, emergency vehicles, road markers, traffic signs, reflections or moving objects. The differences are buried in minute details that only human awareness can sort out.
 

Does this image look like a turn signal, emergency vehicle, road marker, traffic sign, school crossing or reflection? You say nothing looks like that. With a camera flipping images at 20 to 50 times per second in rapidly changing light intensity, that's the type of image a computer would see, except that it would be a lot fuzzier, rapidly changing in size with motion toward it and part of the time, off, requiring the computer to change its evaluation for each on and off cycle. Does the computer look at the same spot for on and off? Humans can see the same spot with motion; computers cannot. And that's why self-driving cannot evaluate flashing lights. There's that much difference and more between awareness and computers. The glib assumption is that computers can be designed to do whatever humans do. To stop significant motion would require about a thousand frames per second while evaluating all of the details and every question in driving in a millisecond. Even if computers could get there some day, it won't be in the foreseeable future and the cameras are not designed for that. So there is no excuse in killing people now while waiting for the magic. For a camera to reveal details, it needs to be "close up." Close up will only see a couple of feet of view. So another camera is needed for the next two feet, and the next. A vehicle would be nothing but a pile of cameras. But the power mongers want it to look like a normal vehicle. So they throw out a lot of sensors that would be needed for additional information.

 
Another insurmountable problem for self-driving is that graded braking is not possible due to the complexities which require human perception and evaluation. With braking, it's necessary to determine how fast reduction in speed is occurring. It's not a fixed and predictable result because of endless variables including friction, inertia and changing circumstances.

The fraud of self-driving goes back to the concept of artificial intelligence, which goes back to the fraud of universities claiming the brain is like a computer in their attempts to bury religion in claiming molecules think.

Unraveling that endless fraud is not necessary to put it into its perspective of corruption. The fraud is in the results. No one can come close to meeting the demands for rationality that intelligence requires in computerized functions. The pretense of accomplishing something that will never be possible is a continuous fraud that overlays the entire subject.

Driving is one of the highest demands placed upon rationality including awareness and judgement. Bad situations in driving overwhelm the demands place upon humans. Almost every auto accident could be avoided with superior decision making. It means the demands for driving require all the intelligence humans can produce. Which also means, no one is going to improve upon the process by adapting silicon to it.

The decision-making problem shows up in braking. Humans use braking quantitatively to adjust speed based on many factors which artificial intelligence cannot evaluate. It's changing conditions including the unexpected that require evaluation, not the fixed speed under uniform conditions.

To slow down in response to unexpected events, a person has to evaluate how fast they are going relative to how fast other vehicles are going and in terms of total speed all integrated into the amount of distance between vehicles and all rapidly changing. Combining that much math into one evaluation would stump mathematicians and take up half the computer space.

Humans don't need the math for judgement; but computers do. So self-driving vehicles are constantly braking improperly. If the braking is too strict, the vehicles stop too fast in front of other vehicles. If the braking is too loose, the vehicles go through stop signs.

No math can evaluate all of the factors properly, because the requirements vary with each situation. And no one can define partial braking, because feedback perceptions are too complex to integrate into every situation which changes in seconds.

Partial braking would be impossible to define even at one velocity in one situation, because friction is not definable enough. Friction varies with weight and changes with purposes, wear on the brake linings, humidity in the air and accumulation of deposits on brake surfaces. That means humans feel the result to determine how much to brake; but no computer programmer can evaluate what feel means when braking.

What incompetents miss is that the optical sensors are too limited and expensive to evaluate all of the factors that need to be evaluated including numerous velocities which vary constantly relative to each other. To properly measure all relevant factors would bury the vehicles in equipment and then not be adequate in sorting out the mess.

Detectors do not record all of the details; and even photographic methods are not a complete substitute for human vision. The photographic detectors would need to change frames at high frequency, like a movie, while the computer is supposed to evaluate the minute details while driving. Computers cannot evaluate that much that rapidly.

Yet the only justification that can be given for self-driving is that it will supposedly reduce accidents. Why glamor hounds would make such claims is not surprising. What is inexcusable is the government allowing anything resembling such claims to jeopardize peoples' lives. It shows how bureaucracies are bent toward the facilitation of corruption instead of preventing corruption.

The bureaucracies are in much worse shape than they used to be, since the Trump Administration stripped them of rational and experienced employees and reduced staff numbers to inadequacies. The bureaucracies always did have the problem that nothing but corruption can come out of the dark. It's impossible for rational persons to accomplish anything without the openness and accountability needed for producing truth.

But there were inherent results in the social expectations for government. And many of the routine procedures could evolve toward improvement, which was occurring in the postal system (quasi-governmental) and the Social Security Administration.

So the purpose of conservatives was to destroy what little value was left in government operations, such as DeJoy preventing mail from being transported on airplanes and requiring trucks only. Air transportation of mail was almost free, because it took up left-over space on planes making airlines more efficient also.

But most significantly, the efficiency of all complexities such as mail handling is in reducing the amount of complexity. Putting mail in an airplane is far simpler and easier than hauling it around the country on trucks, not to mention the fifteen days that it takes to get a first class letter from east coast to west coast by mail. Delaying business by fifteen days can be expensive, when everything is on hold waiting for verification letters.

The point is, such fraud as self-driving can only go as far as bureaucrats allow. They have been allowing it to kill way too many persons without yet lifting a finger to prevent it.

The subject must be put into this perspective: When traditional auto manufacturers design any element of an automobile, they test it in their own labs until there is no mystery about any element of it. A few flaws get through but are usually caught before doing much harm, though standards are deteriorating everywhere as incompetent corrupters take over everything.

And yet, self-driving is tested on public roads instead of on business properties. It isn't that self-driving has reached an end-point of testing which requires actual operating conditions. The technology involved is such junk that there is no end-point of testing. Crap cameras and lidar are supposed to replace human vision. They can't tell the difference between a truck box and open sky. They can't see an emergency vehicle with lights flashing. They can't disconnect from a white stipe on the highway when it goes under or near a concrete barrier.

The entire reason why that technology isn't being tested on private property is because there would never be an end to the testing, while the fakes want to glamorize their fantasies into trillion dollar stock values. The fakery is supposed to be endless, so incompetent corrupters can fantasize a future that solves all problems.

The bureaucrats put up with it assuming that the fantasies will be the future solutions to social problems. That's not what they got hired to do or what the law requires them to do. They violate the law because of their stupidity in assuming fraud is the solution to problems in the future.

On top of the engineering fraud is the fantasy fraud. There is no possibility of solving the problems of self-driving. The limitations are known. The technology is too expensive and inadequate to meet the demands of self-driving. Yet the promoters run on pretense instead of science and engineering.

What gains have they made over past years? They have been going backwards in reducing technology because of expense and inadequacies. So the frauds pretend that they can produce computer programming that will solve the problems which engineering and technology can't solve. It's a fraud upon the public in endangering lives to glamorize fantasy technology and the power mongers who promote it.

Not the least reason why the fraudulent technology isn't being tested in laboratories is because the information is already clear that such technology is totally inadequate for the purposes of self-driving. Instead of allowing the facts to show the inadequacies under laboratory conditions, frauds pretend that the future will solve the problems through witchcraft on the streets. "Fake it until they make it" is how incompetent corrupters replace evaluation with scams.

The obvious fraud of self-driving is linked to the obvious fraud of renewable energy, because incompetent corrupters need to replace human rationality with fraudulent realities to monger power. Credible realities don't get them there. They need an assault upon rationality to monger power.
 
Fraud As Method Of Argument

Self-driving and related artificial intelligence show, in an exaggerated way, the fraud method of argument. The method is to pick some obvious problem which is tangential to the subject and say the purpose is to solve that problem. Just the purpose, not the result. The result is still horrendous, but getting there is the most noble thing to do.

In other words, the arguments are based on the hypothetical of solving some problem in the future, as if the garbage result that is visible is in the process of being turned into a magical solution.

An element of that methodology is for the promoters, generally know-nothings in journalism, to use positive terminology, such as the expectations for the future result being a given rather than the fraud that it is.

Self-driving will forever be killing people; yet it is promoted on the basis that it will, some day, reduce accidents. Who says so? The frauds and conspirators say so in contempt for the science, engineering, evidence and past results.

Of course, the always motive is that incompetent corrupters need fraud to monger power.