Slashdot Mirror
NHTSA Gives Green Light To Self-Driving Cars
New submitter tyme writes: Reuters reports that the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) told Google that it would recognize the artificial intelligence in a self-driving car as the "driver" (rather than any of the occupants). The letter also says that NHTSA will write safety rules for self-driving cars in the next six months, paving the way for deployment of self-driving cars in large numbers.
So is each individual instance of an AI a driver? Each version of the software? Each combination of hardware and software?
If a single car is found to be doing something that would have its license revoked, does that car lose its license, or are all Google cars immediately banned from driving? Would a version tweak cause that license to be reinstated, or would Google be out of the self-driving-car business?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
If I don't have to lose an hour each way on maintaining moderate concentration, moving out of the suburbs into the country suddenly becomes feasible. Sweet! NHTSA approval is a major milestone in this becoming a reality.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
So if the A.I. is the driver under the law, who needs to buy the insurance? Me or the company previously known as Google?
I'm not sure what you are suggesting, or where the savings would supposedly come from. The market price for a car with insurance included would certainly be higher than the market price for a car with no insurance included.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I'm suggesting if Google is driving, and the passengers are passengers, then why the hell would anybody pay for things like liability insurance for an AI?
Could it be because it's still going to have a "fuck it, you drive" mode which passes responsibility to the human so Google can claim they're not responsible?
A self driving car becomes useful when I can have no controls, and be asleep in the back. I don't pay liability insurance on a bus, train or taxi ... why the hell would I pay it when something created by Google is in charge of driving it?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Wonder how much Google public liability insurance premium just increased by.
Because, sorry, but the "AI" is really just a set of rules still. A set of rules that can't take account of every situation. Sure, it can drive more carefully than a human driver, but it can also make just the same kind of dumb mistakes as a human driver too.
But with the consequence that the first accident of note will result in all kinds of problems for EVERY instance of that model running in EVERY model of that self-driving car, rather than just a single driver being an idiot.
And if "the car" is the driver, then driving points and bans means almost nothing OR they mean the end of a self-driving car when they happen.
Aren't we still at the stage where a self-driving car knows the speed limit only by traffic-sign recognition and/or GPS lookup of a database of streets? One slightly muddy sign on a back road, and the car gets a ticket that Google will pay, or sweep under the rug until someone notices thousands of tickets issued to Google-cars over the years that are conveniently just being paid off rather than resulting in more permanent consequences as they would with a human driver.
Until they can flip a bird and show unambiguous road rage
Phase 1: limit AI driven cars to say 35mph or under "network" control (in either case Hazard Lights GO ON)
Phase 2: increase speed by 10mph and put laws in place that a car in AI mode is exempted from DWI (as long as the car is driving directly HOME or to the nearest medical facility)
Phase 3: increase speed by another 10 MPH (or to current speed limit)
Phase 4: AI cars allowed to not have Hazard lights ON unless otherwise needed ....
Phase N: AI cars allowed to travel without somebody in the car and to pickup children (note we had better have KITT level AIs in cars at this point)
In the UK, most tiny karate clubs have a GBP 1m public liability insurance, and it costs a pittance each year.
The fact of the number makes no difference, it's what's covered. I imagine they have to cover a lot more, but even the WORST of these may be better than human drivers on average, so it will quickly re-balance once the risk statistics are apparent, even if companies only pay at first for their testing cars.
Honestly, $100k+ liability insurance is pretty low. Even a school will have GBP 5-10 million and it get claimed on all the time and they handle care of children, including activities, trips, sports, staffing, etc.
...until the first time AI kills someone.
1. AI Manufacturer pays millions and millions in damages?
2. AI Manufacturer finds a way to pawn off responsibility on to the owner.
3. AI Manufacturer passes a law capping damages and maybe even some kind of limited indemnity for the AI Manufacturers
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As stupid as humans can be, machines programmed by stupid humans are much worse.
You routinely buy insurance that protects you from mechanical defect or wear-and-tear. If the defect is egregious enough, lawsuits will be filed (presumably by the insurance companies or as class actions) and you will get some sort of recompense (if only in lower insurance bills than you would otherwise have gotten). You are still making the decision to use an autonomous car, so you are in some sense responsible for that choice. ("Yeah, I know Android Car is a better driver than Microsoft Car, but I got a great deal on it...") This doesn't even get into issues that may arise if the software has a problem dealing with a condition caused by the owner - e.g., your tires are bald or you forced it to drive in conditions it's not rated as capable of handling.
Google will also have counterbalancing claims if you (or the car company using Google's software) don't keep the software updated - there can be no "I preferred to stay on Jellybean" for Android Cars.
There's also a reason it's called a self-driving car.
It's driving, or I'm driving. This isn't Schroedinger's driver.
From your link:
No, because I'm not driving. I'm sleeping in the back.
If this is to be a hybrid model where the car drives until it blames you, then just drive the damned thing yourself.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Google isn't "making you pay" anything. It's your choice to buy or not buy a self-driving car from them and purchase the necessary insurance for it. If you impose liability on Google, they buy their own insurance and add it to the purchase price of the car. Then it's still your choice whether to buy the car or not.
It's the same when you buy a Ferrari: nobody is "making" you buy the car or insure it, but if you choose to buy it, you have to get the required insurance, which may be different than for regular cars.
I suspect pretty soon, the risk from self-driving cars is going to be judged lower than the risk from human driving, meaning that your insurance rates are likely to be lower if you buy a self-driving car. That's going to be even more so for people with prior accidents or who are under 25. So it makes sense to actually price and purchase insurance separately from the car.
If there is a risk from self-driving cars that needs to be insured, you are going to pay for it one way or another. If you don't buy your own insurance, Google will simply have to add it to the purchase price.
It's similar to malpractice insurance: you may think you force your doctor to pay for it, but they just add it back to your bill.
In the end, it's you who wants to operate the product, the companies providing it aren't charities, so you end up paying for everything: material, labor, and risk of operating it.
Let's wait until we see if the cars develop sentience and start gunning for pedestrians before we think about giving AI's the ability to order nuclear weapons launches.
Do I still pay for insurance or can the cost of incidents be charged to the software maker?
Will the cost of my insurance vary depending upon the safety record of the software provider?
Will I be unable to use my vehicle if flaws are discovered in the software? This assumes that Big Brother can disable any vehicle or class of vehicles from a central control location. Which also assumes that Small Hacker can also disable vehicles. Which also assumes that forced updates will be required and that end user modifications will be illegal and detectable.
We may soon have adequate technology to make self driving cars, but the legislative and legal ramifications will take decades to work out. What software provider is big enough to survive the lawsuits that will grow from a deadly flaw? How will the software flaw be argued and proven/dis-proven before jurors in a courtroom? How many lawyers will get rich?
...omphaloskepsis often...
That article didn't read like English. What exactly was the goal of the owner of the Mercedes? What was s/he exempt from? Why was the driver surrounded by police and the plate confiscated if it was a legally obtained plate? How did that link have ANYTHING to do with driver's vs operator's license? What is it you are even trying to say with that statement?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Mr. Roboto on an endless loop!
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Huh? If you lease any car you have to carry a $100,000 PIP. It's certainly more expensive, but it's hardly out of reach for a normal driver. I was carrying that level of policy when I was 22 years old.
If companies can be granted quasi-personhood status, why not a car AI? Are we ready to deal with the implications of car AI rights and car AI voting?
Not if Google adds thousands to the car's price tag, effectively making you pay for the insurance.
'The Great Race' was a 1965 movie and also an American tradition. Competitors race from one side of the country to the other in various vehicles with various rules.
Self driving cars will surely do the same. They will be judged on safety and speed and technicalities like choosing the best route and handling obstacles. Car buyers will want this information and car makers will struggle to optimize their software to win the next race.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Could it be because it's still going to have a "fuck it, you drive" mode which passes responsibility to the human so Google can claim they're not responsible?
Well no, if it had a "fuck it, you drive" mode then there would need to be no regulatory changes. Also, it's right in the article that Google wants to avoid the driver panicking and taking control of the car when something goes wrong.
Imagine driving in a vehicle that can literally "take you for a ride". Hackers could have a field day with this. Wonder if law makers/enforcement agencies will allow a manual override. If people can get reveal private/classified information from federal agencies like the CIA and FBI, is a car (or car server network) going to be a tougher challenge? Hmm...
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Of course insurance will be different between a self driving car and a human driving car. Just like it is different between my self and my co-workers based on our driving history. However, the question is what is the insurance for. If I am buying liability insurance for a autonomous object then the rationale like car insurance must be such the vehicles are so likely to be in an accident that I need a method of paying off other individuals before I can recoup my losses from google. This is akin to needing public transit insurance to pay off people hit by a city bus I was ridding. I was not in control of the vehicle at the time of the incident I had no way of prevention the accident from occurring and it would have occurred weather I was on the bus, so the insurance is paid for by the City who operates the bus and not the passengers.
Momento Mori
Google "expresses concern that providing human occupants of the vehicle with mechanisms to control things like steering, acceleration, braking... could be detrimental to safety because the human occupants could attempt to override the (self-driving system's) decisions," the NHTSA letter stated.
Bullshit. Vehicles must have a full set of manual controls available to the human operator at all times, and furhermore they must be fully educated, trained, licensed, and insured, just like always. To do otherwise is what will put people's lives at risk. Google is smoking crack and needs to be put in their place.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It's driving or I'm driving.
I agree.. otherwise your self driving car becomes a game of Russian roulette. Will you have accidents and have to claim responsibility for them? Maybe, maybe not is not a good enough answer.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If google pays it then I'm fine with that.. because then it becomes part of what the market will bear. I just don't want my premiums jacked up because there was a wicked snow storm last week and my automated car decided to get into an accident on its own accord.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Tickets / civil liability / criminal liability?
And with tickets you have
parking ticket is issued by a private, non-governmental parking authority patrolling an office parking lot or shopping area
private security guards issuing live speeding / moving tickets (non state tickets) (some HOA's and some parking lots or shopping area)
moving tickets from a real cop
parking tickets
red light tickets (parking like)
red light tickets (moving like)
speed camera tickets (moving like)
speed camera tickets (parking like)
toll violations (I can see an auto driver car with bad DB info getting one in some settings)
IF that is going to be the scenario, that a car has a 0.0001% risk of getting in an accident and you are responsible for covering it when it happens, then I'll just keep driving myself thanks. I can't see how an automated car would ever sell that way. Too big of a risk.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That's my major problem with this technology: there's an awful lot vague answers to specific questions.
A "self driving car" means you put little Timmy in it, send him to school, and monitor it on your cell phone to confirm he gets out in the right place and a teacher has collected him ... or it means you come out of a bar, fall into the backseat, and say "home, James" ... or it means grandpa who has lost his vision and his driver's license can get in and say "take me to my doctor's appointment".
No driver's license or legal responsibility for operating the vehicle at all. You are livestock being transported. You're not driving or operating, you simply told it your destination.
This bizarre model in which the car drives, except when it doesn't, and with no clear demarcation between is damned near impossible to make sense of.
If the car decides it's got no idea what to do, and it just says "you're in charge", and before you even know what's happening you're in an accident .. and the logs say "human was driving, his fault", you're screwed. Or, worse, someone builds in code which lies and just says "human was driving" 5 minute before any crash is triggered (so they can avoid liability).
There can't be a gray area between who is in charge and who isn't. And paying for liability insurance when the computer is in charge sounds moronic to me, why would you do that? Are you accepting liability on behalf of the computer or something?
Self-driving-ish cars? Autonom-ish cars? It just seems like everybody is pretending this is a solved issue, and I don't believe it is.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Not if Google adds thousands to the car's price tag, effectively making you pay for the insurance.
SDCs have already driven millions of miles on public roads, and have a far better safety record than human drivers. As software improves, and hardware gets faster, their safety record will get even better. So the cost to insure them will be much lower, regardless of whether the cost of the insurance is incorporated into the car price, or purchased separately.
Consumers will indeed save billions. I would not recommend investing in auto insurance companies. Their business model is due for disruption.
There is no "this model"; people just don't know yet what form self-driving cars will take. There may well be several different classes, depending on speed, kind of AI, and kind of driver.
In that regard, a self-driving car seems no different from a horse or a dog to me: you are using it for some purpose, but you aren't fully in charge of it since it can act autonomously, and you are liable for any damage it causes. Unlike dogs or horses, self-driving cars at least have a track record (by brand).
jonny cab is not responsible for injury or death! We hope you enjoy the ride and ride we are not a amusement park so there is no operator on board.
Thats too bad I'm sure they would have rather been killed than had a broken arm.
Also If you're worrying about the cost of care you have much bigger problems.
Maybe we should teach kids to bike carefully because people in cars aren't looking for them. Helmet or no helmet that part doesn't change.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I'm suggesting if Google is driving, and the passengers are passengers, then why the hell would anybody pay for things like liability insurance for an AI?
You are going to need basic liability insurance no matter what, but it should be a lot cheaper in a car that you're not allowed to drive, because you won't be able to cause an accident.
Could it be because it's still going to have a "fuck it, you drive" mode which passes responsibility to the human so Google can claim they're not responsible?
For the foreseeable future, cars are going to have a human-driven mode, so you're going to need liability insurance for that. If you're willing to let your insurer into your car's data, perhaps they will give you a discount if you don't actually use it.
A self driving car becomes useful when I can have no controls, and be asleep in the back. I don't pay liability insurance on a bus, train or taxi ... why the hell would I pay it when something created by Google is in charge of driving it?
Mechanical failure. Again, your rates should go down if you're not driving, but there will still be opportunities for failure.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Self-driving-ish cars? Autonom-ish cars? It just seems like everybody is pretending this is a solved issue, and I don't believe it is.
It isn't, but the cars aren't ready to drive themselves 100% of the time anyway. They need a lot more data. So they're going to put the cars with the technology out there, and start collecting it. Then they'll determine how it's going to work as they go along... and by "they" I mean automakers and regulators alike.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Seriously... I can't think of any way shape or form that the "AI" behind a "self-driving car" is anywhere near ready for full legal responsibility for this.
Google (and/or other tech companies trying to get this to happen) must have placed tremendous pressure on them to make this happen.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
You're arguing a situation that won't happen.
It's simple, if the car runs into a situation it doesn't know how to handle it will come to a stop. At that time the human operator can take control. The car won't just hand off control without warning, in fact the car won't hand off control at all -- the human would have to take control.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
As General George S. Patton said to the krauts!
That was General Anthony McAuliffe, not Patton.
And so it begins... I predict that congestion will be significantly increased on average as these car struggle with the frequent, "non-standard", driving conditions that we all experience but don't think twice about (neither did the engineers, I presume). Just yesterday I saw there was a police chase that ended in a highway crash, turning 4 lanes into 1, forcing everyone onto the shoulder for obvious reasons. Would this also be obvious to such automated cars, especially after it snowed that morning?
Progress will again be lubricated by the blood of a few innocents. (Or at least the time & patience of many...)
You assert this as a fact. Citation? Or are you just deciding it's true? (If it's true, I'd love to know.)
If the car won't just hand off control without warning, then I should be able to be asleep in the back. If I can't be asleep in the back, then I don't believe what you say.
If it's full stop, change control, start driving ... then I shouldn't physically be in the driver's seat, to make it 100% explicit.
So far your "simple" scenario has yet to be validate by anybody, and so far all these tests require a driver in the seat ready to take controls.
I'm afraid you're arguing a scenario which thus far isn't real.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That risk is very likely astronomically lower than the risk you, or any human, pose as a driver. So far as I've heard every accident that a SDC has been involved in was clearly the fault of the human driver in the other vehicle.
Essentially a ground based drone, notice there's very little hysteria over automated cars, even though they present a far greater privacy threat than airborne cameras.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It was solved in Demolition Man. Human drives from home to the freeway on-ramp. Engages auto-pilot and the wheel stows itself. Coming up to the exit the wheel comes back out and the human disengages auto-pilot.
Nope, no sig
The difference with that is, of course, it is possible to keep dogs and horses under our control. An automated car is NOT under our control by its very definition and functional purpose.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
And if the automated car has to come to a stop when there is no safe place to do so and someone slams into it? This becomes the other driver's fault?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'm suggesting if Google is driving, and the passengers are passengers, then why the hell would anybody pay for things like liability insurance for an AI?
Same reason I can lend my car to someone with a driver's license but no car and thus no insurance of his own. Google's driving but it's still your property and that makes you liable. Say you walk into a store and a light fixture falls on your head. Maybe it's a manufacturing error, maybe it's shoddy work in construction, maybe it's sabotage (unlikely) or whatever. It doesn't matter to you because you sue the store, the store manager can't just pass the buck. Even if they find it was a manufacturing error and the manufacturer is bankrupt he still can't pass the buck. I'm guessing they'll keep it as an insurance because then they can also set the conditions of insurance, like if the car is out of spec in any way it can refuse to drive, it might demand to be kept up to date with the latest driving logic, traffic regulations, road maps and whatnot. A product liability is just that the product was in a normal condition on delivery, not beyond.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not realistic. That solution requires cooperation from the roadway. I think the assumption there is that the entire freeway is designed in a way that interacts with cars as to totally prevent the possibility of an accident. That's just not going to happen.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I strip away the old debris that hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta, from a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel I commit my weekly crime
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Well.. let's just say I'm waiting for them to start testing on ice covered routes. Then I will decide how safe they appear to be.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
teenagers will just be priced out of the market completely... e.g. $100/year to insure your driverless car vs $10000/year to insure your 17 year old kid to drive themselves around.
teenagers do have the highest fatal crash rates, but experience and deteriorating physical capabilities also play roles.
If new human drivers are too expensive to allow to drive, then it shouldn't take long until we don't have human drivers. By old age there is no reason to allow humans to drive anyway.
I am sure that the details will be hashed out over the years. You don't know what you don't know and you can't hold back the ocean so basically do your best and write laws that seem to make sense and then let the courts deal with hashing out the details when we have real-world issues.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I'll be bale to go back to reading, sleeping or listening to music? Sweet
It's your car. If a tire has a blowout and your car runs into something, it's your problem - just as it's your problem if your tree falls on your neighbor's house. Failure to properly maintain it creates the liability. If you don't want the risk, pay someone else (e.g., Uber) to take it. And you'll still have to insure against accidental or malicious damage (e.g., hail, tree limbs, graffiti/keying) on a car you've borrowed money to buy.
This bizarre model in which the car drives, except when it doesn't, and with no clear demarcation between is damned near impossible to make sense of.
If the car decides it's got no idea what to do, and it just says "you're in charge", and before you even know what's happening you're in an accident .. and the logs say "human was driving, his fault", you're screwed. Or, worse, someone builds in code which lies and just says "human was driving" 5 minute before any crash is triggered (so they can avoid liability).
Hell, they're already doing just the opposite. Remember the Hyundai superbowl commercial? Within a certain speed range the car will emergency brake itself to prevent a collision - and that's with a human driver at the wheel.
Given the VW scandal, I think that car companies are going to be under more intense scrutiny for a while. The only time I've heard about self-driving cars that will toss control to a driver were extreme-alpha builds, manned by professional drivers. Modern self-driving cars have the opposite problem - they're designed to stop safely if there's a problem, and not proceed if they don't understand what's going on.
Tossing control to a driver while traveling at 50+ mph moments before an accident isn't something any professional is going to allow. "Cattle car" is a good analogy. Worst case, it stops safely on the side of the road and buzzes for assistance. That's an acceptable failure mode.
I don't read AC A human right
So far your "simple" scenario has yet to be validate by anybody, and so far all these tests require a driver in the seat ready to take controls.
From all the documentation about google cars I've seen, while a professional driver ready to take control is required, the self-driving car will continue to drive until the driver takes positive action to over-ride it.
That's actually how one of the accidents happened - the google car was braking to a stop, the pro disabled it and hit the gas into the back end of the car ahead of him. The car attempts to keep itself safe. Getting 'stuck' is a bigger problem than getting into an accident.
I don't read AC A human right
Ok, agreed. Except for the fact that stopping in the wrong place is a moving violation and a ticketable offense. It is difficult for the other driver to defend themselves in that case, but not unheard of.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well, 'better than an average human' is not good enough for me. Perhaps if it gets to the point where there are 1 or 2 accidents a year caused by AI in North America, in all climates we see in North America. Otherwise I'll do the driving, since I am also better than an average human as well. It had better be better then any human can do and then some.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The red herring in all this is that these cars can't handle weather or other road conditions very well. Potholes would be a major concern because avoiding them with oncoming traffic and other factors, with maybe a dash of weather, say ice on the road, etc. makes them not so much the great white hope that all to many seem to claim that they will be. Speaking in general terms, humans actually do a pretty good job of driving a car. Unfortunately, instead of using rational thinking in curbing distracted driving we see a push for something that is ripe for abuse and intrusion.
Throw in things like this and I find it odd that anyone would be "all in" on self driving cars.
When the car in unable to determine a safe route to travel and stops, if it is in an area that stopping is a ticketable offense the driver can simply take control and drive and avoid getting a ticket.
How likely do you think it is that an autonomous car will have difficulty on a stretch of road where stopping is not allowed (e.g. a bridge or tunnel) where it's not actually unsafe to continue? You won't get a ticket for stopping on a bridge because there is a traffic jam in front of you, for example. Or if you stop because of white-out conditions, for another example. If you get a flat tire on a bridge the car will know you're on a bridge where stopping is not allowed and will drive off the bridge ruining your wheel.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
to be perceptive and important.
But what I really want to know is how this will affect watching porn in the car
If I have a 1 in ten thousand chance of getting in an accident with an automated vehicle, those are pretty good odds. On average, in the city I live in, I get nearly hit once every 100 times.
So, taking a 1 in 10,000 risk of an AI flub-up, even if it goes on my insurance, that's fine with me. It doesn't go on my driving record as a conviction, so I don't have to worry about points. With one free driver fsck-up every 3-5 years, where rates don't get hiked even if I am found culpable, I'll take those odds.
Toss in some dash cams, and it reduces those odds even more.
I guess it depends how grievously you or your family members are injured. If it is one in ten thousand are scraped and/or bruised then fine. Yet if one in ten thousand are sent to the hospital, I am unlikely to accept those odds.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In 'unsafe to stop' I was thinking more of the unpaved shoulders on great lengths of highway where I live, or a shoulder that is covered by a large snow drift.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
True. I'm assuming relatively low speed, due to congestion. Usually metro wrecks consist of rear-enders, light-runners, someone yielding into a car, not a lane, or other fender-benders. However, on country roads, there would be far fewer wrecks... but far more grievous. However, a vehicle's AI usually has fewer factors to figure out in those cases, and can react (brake, swerve, accelerate) far faster than a human can.
Regardless, the odds go up. Yes, one can wind up with the epic fail condition that a human could have avoided where an AI couldn't, but I'd suspect the other way round is far more likely.
And I say again, I'm taking a wait and see approach on safety since I live in a very hostile climate for driving.
Slowing down to a stop or an almost stop is one solution, but it is rarely the best solution since it snarls traffic.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'd rather let the car handle the freeway time. That's the most boring kind of driving there is. And since the most reasonable objection to self-driving cars is they don't handle difficult conditions as well - construction zones, city traffic, poorly-marked secondary roads - this mode lets people handle the "hard" parts and AI handle the boring, routine parts.
Nope, no sig
Sidebar: Any chance that was an actual experiment to document what would happen? I'm not saying it would be right to jeopardize people like that, but you have to know how the system will react.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
I'm willing to double down on both. People that don't look where they are going will be gone and any country acting an appropriate level of stupid will now be film locations for reality tv shows.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
The thing is, AI bears the burden of being foolproof in this case. People like control. People are always going to feel safer if they have control and therefore more willing to accept accidents from themselves than they are ever going to accept accidents from AI.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
All that does is change the physics calculations which the computer would need to use. Which a computer is far better suited to do on the fly than a person. The car could also easily be equipped to identify dangerous road conditions before the car is actually in the midst of them. And once the car is on ice it would be able to react to changing conditions on a scale of milliseconds while a person at best deals in tenths of seconds.
The thing is, my concern is that it will adapt to icy conditions by just slowing down to a walking speed or less, and that that will be terrible for driving. Sometimes you have to spin the tires, and sometimes you have to slide around a bit. If AI can calculate how to turn the tires so that the front wheels slide but the whole car moves where it should go, or how to alter the course so that the tires land in the visible ruts as opposed to staying in the lane, then bravo for AI, it's doing better than a human. But slowing to a crawl at the immediate appearance of ice would be a disaster and prevent anyone from getting anywhere. Also, missing ruts by a bit can send a car out of control and human drivers make ruts that don't stay in the lane. I'm sure there are a million other adjustments that I make in order to get from A to B on a winter day in a reasonable time frame, those are just ones that come to mind.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Sidebar: Any chance that was an actual experiment to document what would happen? I'm not saying it would be right to jeopardize people like that, but you have to know how the system will react.
Nope, the professional driver was just being a moron. The cars have extensive logging though, so they knew precisely what happened.
I don't read AC A human right
Well, there are *lots* of competing definitions of AI, so I guess you'd have to provide your definition before we can discuss.
One definition that doesn't agree with you: The ability of a computer or other machine to perform actions thought to require intelligence.
If you had asked someone in the 1970's whether driving a car (correctly) require intelligence, I'm betting they would have said yes. Thus, the self driving car is an artificial intelligence by that definition. From another angle, this is an expert system, which Computer Science has taught in Artificial Intelligence classes since well before this century.
I think you are talking about something now called AGI: Artificial General Intelligence. This program is definitely not AGI, by any definition.
Otherwise I'll do the driving, since I am also better than an average human as well.
See also the Dunning–Kruger effect.
But sure, drive yourself. No problem. My self-driving car will recognize the cars driven by unsafe humans and avoid them, so you'll still be much safer (since you'll only be in danger from other idiot humans). Seems like a loss for natural selection but otherwise a win for everyone.
liability insurance for a autonomous object then the rationale like car insurance must be such the vehicles are so likely to be in an accident that I need a method of paying off other individuals before I can recoup my losses from google
Really? I pay homeowners insurance even though 95% of the possible claims would be caused by weather, or natural disasters, or poor wiring done by an electrician, or poor wiring in a device I didn't manufacture. How is self-driving car insurance any different?
So the insurance is paid for by the City who operates the bus and not the passengers.
No, the insurance is paid by you via your fare. In the same way that if you own a house, you pay the property tax directly. If you rent an apartment, you pay the property tax via your rent. If you eat at a restaurant or shop at a store, some tiny part of your bill pays for the insurance and property tax of the restaurant.
The benefit of self-driving cars is that the insurance is likely to be far, far lower than human insurance. But we'll see; insurance companies are quite good at determining risks, so in a few years we'll see how the insurances compare.
Why would youcare what the risk is as long as someone is willing to insure it for you cheaply enough? Your insurance for a self-driving car is likely going to be lower than for a regular car.
Well if there is a 0.0001% change of me dying in the car from a mistake the car could make then I do care about that. Also, I have a problem accepting liability for an accident I may not be able to do anything about. I'm not willing to accept that it is ok for the car to get in an accident because it is safer than me. As long as it may get into an accident in a situation that I would have been able to handle, I should not have to accept any liability for it. These cars need to be 100% infallible.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why? Your lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is about 1.2%. A 0.0001% chance of you dying from a mistake the car could make would be completely negligible.
You don't accept liability, your insurance company does. Furthermore, if you drive, you already do the same thing: you pay insurance to cover you and your passengers for the mistakes of other people, like when an uninsured motorist plows into your car.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It simply means that Google sold you the car without assuming liability. Maybe you're just a student and don't own much, but as people get older, they tend to own more "autonomous objects" that can cause injury to others. That's why many people get umbrella liability policies. Unless you're dirt poor, it's a good idea to have something like that.
You are paying for the insurance of that bus, both through your ticket and through your taxes. And you're likely paying a lot more for insurance that way than if you paid for it on a case-by-case basis.
If I'm paying for insurance, then I am accepting liability.. or at least lets call it, bearing the burden of it. I am in a car I am not controlling. I might not even be in it, I might have a box in it. I'm not paying a dime to protect myself from that. These people say it can go out into the world, then it can go out into the world. I wash my hands of it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No, you are transferring that liability.
Well, then don't buy a self-driving car. Better don't buy a regular car, a house, a yard, or a dog either, because owning any of them involves risks that you have no control over at all.
Well, I control a regular car, a yard. That's why people have to leash their dogs. So they control them. If I had a gun, I would control that too. If it went off without my control then I sue the gun company. I don't control how my house was built. but that's what building standards are for, so the builder is liable for that part. I control everything in it, and the parts that I don't control are covered by their various vendors. Things are pretty safe these days. See the pattern? The aspects that I control, I pay for insurance on. The aspects that I do not control become the legal responsibility of the supplier. These cars I do not control. Anyway it doesn't matter because if insurance agencies are allowed to charge people what they will want for this, the whole autonomous car idea is a passing fad, because no one is going to pay the vehicle costs with insurance premiums on top.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
OK, so you live under the delusion that if anything goes wrong with anything you own, you're just going to sue and recover from the manufacturer. Good luck with that.
Any sane person has insurance coverage to cover these cases, and the insurance company will simply pay out to the injured party and not sue the manufacturer (except in cases of gross negligence).
Those insurance premiums are likely going to be lower. But given your gross errors in estimating risk ("if there is a 0.0001% chance"), it's not surprising that you have these misconceptions about insurance and premiums.
I predict, though, once these cars are out, you'll just buy one, like everybody else.
Maybe... It really depends how safe they become in winter for me. I just really, really doubt that insurance companies are going to charge that much less to cover them. It's not going to be 'oh these are 1000 times safer so we will charge 1/1000 of a regular car'. It's going to be more like 'these are safer so you can have 10% off the cost of the regular car'. It may even be 'these are new technology, and very expensive to fix, so you must pay 2x the amount of a regular car'.
We'll have to see.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I agree that scale might make it easier for Google to reduce costs over and above what an individual can get. But I think we're talking about a few percentage points - profit margins for insurance companies are in the 10% range. At the end of the day it will still be a matter of paying for your insurance up-front with the cost of the vehicle or paying as you go.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
...Nope, the professional driver was just being a moron...
Ah, more people being people.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
You sure are better, until you have an accident the AI wouldn't have. That's the thing - human drivers are terrible, yourself included.
AI is not human, therefore it is going to get confused in an entirely different situation than a human would. I'm not saying I can drive better than AI, I'm saying that it is entirely conceivable that AI would get confused in a situation that I would not. It's like how chess grand masters need to change their game entirely when they play computers. AI just does not act like a human.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.