Slashdot Mirror
Volvo Unveils Autonomous Concept Car, WIth Retracting Wheel, 25" Display (computerworld.com)
Lucas123 writes: Volvo has revealed what is sees as the future of self-driving vehicles, a car that has three autonomous driving options, one of which includes a retracting steering wheel, reclining seats with foot rests and a tray table. Unveiled at the Los Angeles Auto Show this week, the Concept 26 also has a 25-in interactive display. Volvo is also among the first to address the subject of self-driving cars and liability, saying we firmly believe that car makers should take full responsibility for the actions of the car when it is driving in full autonomous mode."
the need for Swede!
Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents its cars cause.
So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?
What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode right before an accident giving the people in the car no time to try to get out of it?
At some point we'll also need inter-car communication protocols. I look forward to cars strategizing on the highway, in yields, or at traffic lights (which may eventually stop to exist altogether).
I haven't had a car for many years and don't foresee buying one any time soon.
However, once self driving cars are a reality, I will certainly consider buying one.
I suspect that I am not alone in this. It will be a huge selling point for these car companies and will perhaps turn non car owners into car owners.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
But considering this is volvo,
Does it run SteamOS?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
Too bad cars like this will never be street legal.
Oh boy! And what if a meteorite made of fart pillows descends from the sky at supersonic speeds and the people in the car can't get out of the way in time to prevent a hole being punched into the crust of the earth that sucks in all people? Cause it could totally happen, you know. So we should talk about it.
Even though Volvo will be liable, however that doesn't really excuse them for taking the steering wheel away from the driver.
There is legal liability. However that isn't much condolence if you are in the car about to get into an accident which you could avoid if you could.
Well I am going to lose my arm or die. However I will take comfort in the fact that I will get a big payout for this. Even though if I had access to a wheel and brake I could have saved myself.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Your idea is way out there. My thing is the EULA / fine print BS that is used to get out being liable. Also can they use the DMCA to keep logs / source code out of court?
Wasn't this car featured in the movie(s) Bitches in Black?
WTF == 'obelisk'
If someone is driving a brand new car right off the lot and the breaks fail, causing a fatal accident, does the CEO do hard time now? In that case, it's pretty clear that the defect is the responsibility of the manufacturer, but it would be far more likely that there would be a civil lawsuit. So when Volvo says they will be liable, they're talking about civil and not criminal liability.
To expand further. It is like if you are driving and you can safely avoid someone rear ending you. But you don't because they are liable.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?
Yeah, because that will so encourage corporations to accept liability and responsibility for their products, and not use a boilerplate "get out of jail free" card by putting all risk on the passengers (e.g. GPL section 15):
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM âoeAS ISâ WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
That is exactly what we don't want from autonomous car manufacturers, so threatening to lock their CEOs up for trying to do the right thing isn't just counter-productive, it is beyond stupid.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident?"
I think we know the answer to that - liability will be strictly limited to the company and there will be so many get-out clauses in the purchasing contract that they'll never be succesfully charged with anything short of a major failure of the vehicle.
Also I suspect "its cars cause" doesn't include the time when the car isn't driving itself - ie just after its detected an unavoidable accident and hands over to the human!
Seeing the pic in the TFA of the hipster guy leaning back while the car drives itself made me think that if it was me, I would not be able to relax while the car just drove. I think I'd still be continually scanning the displays and surrounding area looking out for potential trouble even though I know that I am not in control.
This make me wonder how much autonomous driving it will take before people actually feel emotionally comfortable letting the car do its thing? Or if anyone who has grown up with manual driving can ever fully trust an automated driving system? And I say this as someone who builds automated manufacturing equipment for a living and I implicitly trust those systems to do what they are designed to do (after being thoroughly tested).
(Of course the flip side is that reading Risks List gives me a dose of skepticism when it comes to other peoples systems)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I need dimmable windows for some...surfing privacy while I'm driven to work.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I can't find the link at the moment, but as I recall Google has articulated the same position, and said it some years ago. The maker of the autonomous care should be held liable for any errors made by the autonomous driving system. Really, who else could be liable?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?
If the software causes the vehicle to go out drinking on a Friday night and then drive itself into a bus full of orphans and nuns, killing them all, then yes, the CEO and the programmers should go to jail.
Is Volvo also legally and financially responsible for the driver's side backseat passenger being crushed to severe injury or death immediately upon enabling self-driving mode? Source: the concept pic at the bottom of the article.
Liability is the reason autonomous cars will not happen, at least in America.
From the article:
According to Tesla, more than 1 million cars have already installed a recently released over-the-air software upgrade to the Model S sedan's Autopilot feature
That is quite some feat, considering that most analysts estimate the total number of Model S sedans delivered so far at under 100,000
CAR: "We are about to crash. Please return your seatback and tray table to their fully upright and loc..." [WHAM!!!]
Until all cars are fully autonomous for a decade or more, I am not going to be taking my eyes off the road. I like the idea, but we're a LONG way from being able to implement the fully automated vehicle utopia.
Precisely, the only times criminal liability would be a factor is if there is evidence that an employee tampered with the vehicle, management decided to ignore internal warnings that a design defect could cause loss of control, or if the manufacturer systematically cheated regulatory tests designed to find such problems.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
More importantly, this is probably the first direct statement from a car manufacturer that THEY consider themselves 100% responsible for any accidents or problems when the car is in self drive mode.
This statement alone is more news worthy then the self-driving car itself!
so... someone from GM is going to jail?
To expand further. It is like if you are driving and you can safely avoid someone rear ending you. But you don't because they are liable.
The way Americans love to tailgate (follow too closely) you picked a good example. I've actually had to slam on my brakes because someone in front of me suddenly stopped (deer, I think). Since I wasn't following too closely, I had a good margin. But the jerk-off behind me was following much too closely in his large SUV and I saw he was about to plow into me. So I then had to punch the gas, move up another meter or two, and slam the brakes again which gave him barely enough time to stop and avoid me.
Now maybe the AI aboard this vehicle can cope with a situation like that. And maybe it can't. I sure hope it doesn't assume sanity among fellow drivers. With potential car accidents there are much more immediate concerns than legal liability. Who pays for it is something that gets settled later among the survivors. While getting rear-ended is usually not fatal unless it happens at crazy speeds, it can cause some painful long term damage especially to the neck and spine.
That was one of the closest calls I had but certainly not the only one. Just last week I was stuck behind a very slow driver (possibly a drunk). He was doing about 25 to 30 in a 45 mph zone during good conditions. There was no safe opportunity to pass him or her. Especially since I suspected intoxication I gave more following distance than I usually would. The moron behind me (also in a large SUV - coincidence?) decided to display his infantile patience by tailgating me very closely. Apparently he believed I was somehow responsible for what the guy in front of me was doing, even though he could plainly see I was as stuck as he was. Or he didn't care and just wanted to take out his infantile impatience on the first available target which was me.
Could an AI be smart enough to know a) what the speed limit was, b) how much below it the vehicle in front is moving, c) that these were good conditions, no adverse weather, etc, and d) that people tend not to go that slow unless something is wrong with them, put all of that together, and realize that the situation is more risky than normal? Do we have the tech to do that right now?
So what if say due to a software error a small kid gets miss identified as safe to run over and car does that and keeps on going that is hit and run a felony + felony manslaughter. Will volvo pay for the owners court costs + Attorney + bail + job loss support + jail fees + inpoud / towing fees + a new car / cab fees?
Eating food, applying makeup, talking or texting with their mobile devices, watching TV, arguing with their kids or driving with their pet sitting in their lap, I can only conclude that self-driving cars will be FAR AND AWAY SUPERIOR to human pilots.
And what sort of an ahole accuses someone of being mentally ill because they have a differing opinion?
I thought it was Volkswagon.
Different AC here, but your scenario is only marginally more credible than the GP's strawman. It's the kind of dumb "loophole" dreamed up by the the same kind of shallow legal thinking that gives us treasures like "you have to tell me if you're a cop!"
I think "Felony car accident" is a contradiction in terms. If it's an accident, it's highly improbable, probably impossible, to be accidental. Even manslaughter requires the killer did something willful that lead to the victim's death, even if death wasn't the intent.
Of course, mischievous designers could design a car so that it'll kill someone deliberately, but that's possible today too, so there's that.
Now, it is good news Volvo accepts liability, and I suspect all car manufacturers recognize that this is the only way it can work, but I suspect the consequences will be the death of car sales, and cars becoming rentable/leasable instead. No car company is going to be happy with being liable for the potentially deadly behavior of their vehicles when they can't control them, and they're even less likely to be happy about essentially writing a blank check for any accidents when a car leaves a car lot.
So more likely, you'll lease a vehicle. Leases will be short - perhaps even month to month. You'll need to return the car for servicing or risk losing it. If the manufacturer uncovers a problem that's expensive to fix and would need significant rises in lease payments to cover, you may find it unexpectedly withdrawn at the next renewal.
That sounds... unpopular? Leasing is common in the US, but it's not the majority, and it's usually sold as a way for someone on a medium income to get a better new car, which is a very specific market. I bet very few Slashdot readers would do that.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Have you ever been in an accident? It's pretty rare that you can actually see them coming. Otherwise, you would have avoided it, right? Or put another way... even if you can see it coming, it's likely that had you seen it earlier, there would be no need for last second heroic swerving or braking maneuvers.
Short of some horrible malfunction on multiple levels, a computer is going to start slowing down or braking long before a human is even aware of a potential problem. The autonomous car has the advantage of literally being able to see in all directions at once, and being able to react to that information in the blink of an eye.
Typical future scenario in your autonomous vehicle: "Why the hell is the car slowing d... oh, I see..."
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Actually, I think handing control over to the "driver" in such a situation is the worst possible solution, since they probably aren't paying any attention at the time. Sure, the driver should always be able to demand control if they're paying attention, but even then the computer can probably do a better job of damage mitigation than most people.
Besides, if it's truly an unavoidable accident then it wasn't caused by the car or driver in the first place. And if it was an accident that could have been avoided if the danger was properly recognized sooner then it *was* caused by the car, and handing control over to the driver when it's already too late to do anything doesn't change that fact.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?
If the software causes the vehicle to go out drinking on a Friday night and then drive itself into a bus full of orphans and nuns, killing them all, then yes, the CEO and the programmers should go to jail.
I say this sarcastically: the nuns would be no great loss (besides, they believe in Heaven right?). Ask anybody who was forced to attend a Catholic school growing up. They're really rather mean, uncompromising, vicious people and enjoy doing things to children like hitting them on the knuckles with rulers and talking to them in a degrading way. Maybe repressing their sexuality all their lives has made them bitter? I don't know. In any case, I suppose this is their way of spreading the love and forgiveness of Christ? At least it's an upgrade from Inquisitions, torturing, and burning at the stake.
Seriously most Atheists I met came from a Catholic background. I've only known a scant few who had an Atheistic, Protestant, Jewish or other background. I doubt this is coincidence.
I thought it was Volkswagon.
No, they just pollute a little more than other cars, not kill people directly.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
How are you going to throw the engineers in jail for manslaughter? Wouldn't they all just quit working on such projects?
FFS, the DRIVER IS RESPONSIBLE. This is the law already and it must always be the law if we value a free society.
Hey man, it wasn't my fault! It's all this ethanol-rich gasoline that they're serving everywhere. I *tried* to stay sober, I really did, but *you* try being fed 10 gallons of 15% alcohol and see how well YOU drive!
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I think we know the answer to that - liability will be strictly limited to the company
There's no need for "get-out clauses" in the purchasing contract, because that's how the law works. Employees are not liable for the products or services of the company they work for. The only exception, from what I understand, is if they do something illegal themselves.
Also, Volvo has clearly stated that they're accepting liability for accidents which their autonomous systems cause. From TFA: "Who will be responsible when an autonomous vehicle causes an accident?" Why would they be responsible when another car broadsides theirs? They haven't even remotely suggested accepting liability in all cases.
You seem to be inferring some conspiratorial vibe here, and I'm not really seeing it. It seems rather straightforward to me.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I wasn't aware of anything like that. Story?
Once it's too late to do anything to avert an accident then responsibility (or lack of, in the case of unavoidable confluences of bad luck) has already been established. In purely human terms, if a pilot sends an airplane into a steep dive while the copilot is on the can, and then hands the controls over to the copilot moments before impact, he does not transfer any responsibility to the copilot, because he did not actually transfer any control over the events about to unfold.
I agree that it is the sort of thing that a conniving lawyer could attempt to weasel out of with the right fine print, but I suspect that few judges or juries would be sympathetic to their argument. And even if they were, I suspect the damage to the reputation of both company and product would be far greater than magnanimously accepting full responsibility from the start. The only problem I see is the risk of corporations being sentenced to much greater penalties than a human driver that caused an analogous accident.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Except you can't, because you stopped really paying attention to the traffick the second the car began driving itself. You won't even notice you're about to get to an accident, much less have any idea what to do about it. At best you might get startlet and do something stupid, like unexpectedly slam the brakes in the middle of a highway. It's best to take direct control away from you except through some ritual which is complicated enough to ensure you're actually paying attention and have had time to think what you're doing. And yes, that will sometimes lead to accidents, but probably less often than the other way.
Besides, isn't getting rid of that whole "paying attention to the traffick and planning what to do" thing the whole point of self-driving cars? It's not like working the controls is physically tiring.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
What's interesting about robotic cars is they will probably be vastly safer than human drivers overall. Say 15,000 human cause accidents a year, versus 100 automation caused accidents a year. So going with my made up numbers, even if a robotic car causes an accident it would have prevented 150 accidents. Morally, it seems like they should *almost* get a free pass for the limited number of accidents they cause (as every human driver they replace will save lives).
SURELY NOT!!!!!
If someone is driving a brand new car right off the lot and the breaks fail
Every time there is a discussion about cars, there are always dumb cunts like you who just can't fathom the distinction between "break" and "brake". It never fails.
Automakers agree with me: You still need to know how to drive, and it would be unsafe to not have full manual controls in the vehicle. Tough luck for some of you, I guess, you'll still have to work on those sub-par driving skills of yours.
So what if say due to a software error a small kid gets miss identified as safe to run over and car does that and keeps on going that is hit and run a felony + felony manslaughter.
No, it's called Natural Selection. The kid shouldn't have been in the road in the first place.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ladies and gentlemen, the greatest concept car of all time, the Buick Y-Job:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
This ought to collapse insurance rates in the long-run, so I'm all for it. What a racket that is.
I wasn't aware of anything like that. Story?
There's this amazing invention called Google. Perhaps you have heard of it? It's very easy to use. Using it and getting a solid answer even takes less time than posting stupid questions! Have you tried it? Give it a try, it really works! Why, the very first search result answers your question -- how 'bout that?
I'd feel a lot better if most people on the roads DIDN'T have a wheel that would allow them to control a multi-ton vehicle at speed.
It obviously would err on the side of safety. Pretty safe to assume that ANYTHING in the path of the car would be a 100% stop the car event. This is the case today with forward collision avoidance.
As Elon Musk pointed out in an interview, these systems need redundant failover capabilities. So if ANY of the primary or secondary radar panels or ANY of the primary or secondary cameras were not working... this system would not work, period. If any of those failed during transit... the car would slow down, stow the tv, put the seat and wheel back into driving position and alert the driver to assume control and find a volvo dealer. Or it would just safely stop on its own and then do those things.
Everyone loves Snide Lmgtfy Guy!
Concept cars are worthless. The concept never gets produced (even parts of the concept). Just work on production vehicles.
They seem to be quite optimistic. lol
Everyone loves Snide Lmgtfy Guy!
As much as I love what I call "willful helplessness", or the helplessness you choose.
I'm guessing that Volvo is banking on changes to laws if this becomes common. The concept of felony driving violations will simply go away, at least with respect to self-driving vehicles.
Typical future scenario in your autonomous vehicle: "Why the hell is the car slowing d... oh, I see..."
Here is a video of that actually happening, with Tesla's autopilot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Corporations are people my friend.
Just not people when it comes to criminal acts. I can't pay a fine to get away with manslaughter. Corporate "persons" can.
Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents its cars cause.
So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?
If you cause a car accident due to an unforeseen heart attack or medical condition that you had no control over or expectation of, you hopefully won't go to jail :)
Similarly, if one of the wheels fall of the car while driving, and the car is well maintained, regularly serviced, you hopefully won't face criminal charges in the event of a car accident. Nor will your mechanic face charges.
If however, it is proven that your mechanic knowingly didn't do his job and put bad wheels on your car, then yes, maybe there is a criminal charge.
Or if you could be expected to know that wheel was likely to fall off... But you decided to run anyways.
But generally a crime has to have some level of intent or ignorance, to qualify as a crime.
What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode right before an accident ...?
Since self driving cars (SDCs) do not "dump out of full autonomous mode", that will not happen. The car may beep to get the human's attention, but the computer will continue to make a best effort to prevent an accident, or reduce its severity, until the human affirmatively takes control of the vehicle. There is no way in hell that the computer will just stop controlling a moving car.
It is odd that when people try to point out the problems with SDCs, they often tend to focus on tasks where SDCs particularly excel. Many accidents happen in a split second, and an SDC will react far faster, steer optimally, pre-tension seat belts, and almost always handle the situation better than a human. The increased reaction time alone will save thousands of lives annually.
Here is where Volvo is with the tech.
I am still not sure how people think computers can deal with the real world when my 3 year old can out do most any computer in solving visual word captchas. We give them lidar and sensors galore, then painstakingly and manually map out the routes to inch resolution marking every driveway, road sign and stop light. Many of these sensors won't function in bad weather like rain and snow, and what happens when real world things happen like a blowing cardboard box that lidar would pose a far bigger threat to safe AI driving than a human driver or to a vehicle. What we need isn't really more powerful hardware or even sensors - we need groundbreaking research in new algorithms and ways to optimally fuse them. I would feel far safer in a vehicle with algorithms on par with common household fly using just two crappy cameras and a 3 dollar 6-axis gyro/accelerometer.
Its a great start if auto companies take full responsibility, i just have no hope of it actually replacing human drivers on open roads anytime in the next 20 years.
What court costs? You weren't driving, but were a mere passenger in a car that had been approved by regulatory agencies to not need a driver. It's Volvo and said agencies who are responsible for any errors the autopilot might make - as long as you haven't tampered with it, of course.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You are assuming that the criminal liability laws which govern human drivers would apply exactly the same to autonomous vehicles, but we have been arguing that they would not.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
If I screw up in traffic and accidentally kills someone, I will at worst get a very light punishment (probably a fine) unless I have been drunk or reckless. My insurance company will take the financial hit. The real problem is that I have to live with the fact that I have screwed up and caused someone's death.
Putting an robotic car in autonomous mode will hardly be counted as reckless, and if the software screws up and accidentally kills someone I will not feel that I caused the accident. If I still get a fine and/or have to pay no-claim discount is that an acceptable problem.
If I get hit in traffic, I don't really care if I was hit by a human driver or an autonomous car. All I want is the risk to get hit to be as small as possible.
Can you identify a felony car accident that this scenario would fit? Off hand I can only imagine things like wreckless driving and DUI. Neither of those should occur with a autonomous car. Basically the most you should run into is the equivalent of equipment failure.
So many hypotheticals. Self driving cars have eyes in the back of their heads! You don't. So, self driving cars aren't estimating distances, know exactly how fast they are going, frequently know road conditions (wet, dry), can calculate much more accurately and faster how soon impacts will happen in all directions. It is really quite amusing to assume that most drivers can perform better in an emergency situation. Does anyone still believe that seat belts don't save lives? Antilock brakes? People over estimate their driving skills. I truly believe that the sooner people are removed from the driving equation, the safer everyone will be.
How long before the insurance scammers figure out how to "bait" these new Volvi into crashing? This seems like the perfect neck-injury con-job just waiting to happen.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
All those cases you listed would play out very differently if the other cars were autonomous.
I bet there are a lot of drivers out there that feels the same about your driving as you feel about theirs.
When cops hall your ass to jail after a cop see your car run over that kid and it keeps on going even trying bypass the cop road blocks as see that as some big that it must move out of the way of.
yes, this should be interesting since volvo is now a Chinese car, with Chinese quality.
And I am sure that it will be out next fall. Right?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So... Jesus is my autopilot?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Maybe they will build it like most games where the algorithms are so poorly written they overwork the hardware and become laggy at the critical time. So just before the crash the system gets over worked, lags out - then a double crash software crash followed by car crash.
that this is a 'concept'. Do you have any idea how many concepts at trade shows never get manufactured? Just a reality check.
To expand further. It is like if you are driving and you can safely avoid someone rear ending you. But you don't because they are liable.
Let's ignore the fact that you rarely are going to be able to see or respond to an accident that the computer doesn't also see and can respond to. Even ignoring this, this is no different than you sitting on a bus, a plane, or a subway and seeing an accident that can be avoided. As a passenger, even if you are in the 2nd row seat, are you really going to jump up and try to take the steering wheel from the bus driver? What are the odds that you can do this safely and prevent an accident where the bus driver who has driven thousands (or in the case of the eventual automated car millions) more miles that you can't.
When cops hall your ass to jail after a cop see your car run over that kid and it keeps on going even trying bypass the cop road blocks as see that as some big that it must move out of the way of.
Why would the cop haul a person sitting in an automated car to jail for a hit and run? That's like sending the passengers of a bus to jail for a hit and run done by the bus driver. Sure, the passengers have an obligation to report it, but they aren't liable for anything themself. They are just the passenger.
Amen!
Perfectly appropriate response. The VW story isn't exactly an obscure bit of news.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
dating yourself a bit there, pope...
And if you get a dumb cop like Officer Barbrady or chief wiggum?
You are mentally retarded. Check the LMGTFY link and put your dunce cap on.
I wasn't aware of anything like that. Story?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - "paid compensation for 124 deaths"
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
"what is sees"... srsly?
I wasn't asking about the VW story, I was asking about GM. Incidentally, Snide Lmgtfy Guy googled for Volvo and not Volkswagon,
That's a video of exactly why autopilot isn't ready.
The car on the right was already stopped, since the beginning of the video, to let the guy turn and the tesla proceded until it had to suddenly brake, nonsense.
If you're stuck in traffic you have to let others cars pass on the side roads.
That's a video of exactly why autopilot isn't ready. The car on the right was already stopped, since the beginning of the video, to let the guy turn and the tesla proceded until it had to suddenly brake, nonsense. If you're stuck in traffic you have to let others cars pass on the side roads.
That sounds more like a failure of the meatbag pilot than the poorly-named "autopilot" feature.
In any case, I do not agree. The vehicle traveling straight has right-of-way, the fact that the lane to the right of him was blocked with traffic has no bearing on that. The Tesla clearly could proceed without hindrance in its own lane, and the driver that cut him off was clearly at fault by any interpretation of law, common sense, or safety.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Then you'll get hauled to jail for running over a kid while you were home sleeping in your bed.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
For your first example, that you had sufficient stopping distance to hit the gas again, and then brake again to avoid being rear-ended means that it is likely you were breaking harder than you needed to the first time you hit the breaks. It seems likely that the AI in an autonomous vehicle would know how hard it needs to brake to avoid hitting the car in front, and thus in your example would not have braked quite as quickly as you initially did, and the car behind would likely still have been able to stop without hitting the autonomous car.
For the questions related to the second example.
a) Yes
b) Yes
c) Yes
d) That depends entirely on the programming, as the AI doesn't really think like we do, the programmer will need to program in the response for those sets of conditions. However, it seems to me that the situation you described isn't significantly more risky for the autonomous car AI than following a driver that appears to be driving normally, a driver that appears to be driving normally still might do something unexpected and thus the AI will need to be able to react to it, so it likely wouldn't need a larger following distance than normal.
I think it is likely we do have the tech right now to deal with the situations you described. But those situations are far from the most difficult the AI is likely to need to deal with.
HaHa!
Your link is for "Volvo + pollution".
You're the one who is too dumb to use Google properly.