So your argument is that laws and threat of penalization or incarceration don't work on a general basis? If there were no punishment for stealing from a corner store, no more people would do it? That's a fairly difficult stance to defend.
I am also arguing against making automation a special case. I am not liable as a passenger in a bus or a taxi because I am not driving it, nor do I have realistic influence over the person driving it. Therefore I should not be liable for the actions of an automated car, even if i own it. Maybe we are making the same argument.
It's fine if the cost is passed on equally through the cost of the car. I just don't want to be the poor schmuck who pays twice the premium as anyone else because his personal automated vehicle thought a trailer crossing the road was a bridge in the distance. If the cost of that gets passed equally to all owners of the same vehicle then fine.
I guess I don't follow your argument since neither of your examples apply to automated driving at all. If an automated vehicle rolls down an incline when parked then it's not the passenger's fault because the parking brake should be automated. If the parking brake isn't automated then it's not a fully automated car.
How does anyone 'control AI'? A business can place threats of penalties on employees that don't drive safe, it can put numbers of vehicles to call if the drive is reckless, it can give its employees defensive driving training; none of these can be done with AI.
Come to think of it, there isn't really any reason for the tire to be damaged since the car shouldn't drive into anything. If the tire is damaged, it may be from vandalism but the owner might not even be aware of that. So still all liability should be with the company.
Why would an automated car not have the parking and emergency brake automated? I will grant you, if the owner doesn't change a damaged tire and it blows while driving, it may get a bit grey as to whether the automated car should have been able to handle the situation or not. However, those should only be in very rare cases. Probably the automated car should not work if the tire lacks pressure, or if the brake pads are worn, etc.
Nope. In that case, the business controls the drivers who control the car so of course there needs to be insurance for liability. A business buying self driving cars from Google should not be liable either, since there is nothing they can do to control the car. Yes you may want to insure against external forces such as vandalism or fire, but why would anyone pay for liability for something they do not control?
No, your example is more like what he have now. When you go out on the street or into a public place, you know you are taking a certain risk that is made as manageable as possible by safety and health regulations. Introducing the unknown complexity of self driving to the mix is more akin to testing a new aerosol vaccine on crowds of unknowing people.
If I am in a self driving car, I cannot be liable for anything since I am not controlling it. How is it not new that I shouldn't need insurance for a car that I own? I don't care if it is a 0.001% chance that it gets in an accident, it has nothing to do with me since I'm not driving.
Don't just "expect that" automation will save lives, especially since nothing has been proven. Any automation on the road today either A) is used in a controlled environment, B) is severely limited where it can be used, backed up by the 'human still has to pay attention' bull, and/or C) has a dedicated human driver taking control when it gets into trouble. Let them prove that they *can* save lives, then maybe let them on the road.
50,000 people a year die on American roads, yet people still use them. Imagine that! They must be happy with the risk they incur by using American roads. It doesn't make it right to change the game on them by allowing companies to put automation on the roads who have shown us a clear history of reducing costs over reducing safety.
Not only does it leave consumers as guinea pigs, it makes every non-participating driver, cyclist, and pedestrian a guinea pig. When someone dies from a flaw in self driving, will they consider it a good trade off if maybe fifty years down the road we start to see a decrease in road deaths from the technology? Will they understand why their family paid the price? Full liability on the part of the vendor introducing a self driving technology should be a minimum requirement.
You hit the nail on the head. The lack of places for growth are just causing the rich to leverage their power to get richer without benefiting the poorer. Trickle down economics would work if there was a place for valid growth because that would generate jobs, but there just isn't.
Except the government is the only entity that has the purpose of standing up equally for all people. I'm sorry you Americans have a crappy government, but you really need to become active in making it the government it should be, rather than distrusting any government anywhere, including your own.
Furthermore, in the richer country the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The people bearing the brunt of this are people who are struggling in the rich country in the first place.
If you look at how little living standards are actually increased versus the very few that are actually getting a vastly disproportionate benefit from it (hint: these people don't have an issue with living standards in the first place), it is still a valid point. It's no different than heads of humanitarian aid organizations living in big North American mansions.
To be fair, even the government admits that the problem was mishandling on the government side. The contract specifically gave the government full control over the project since they were worried the alternative was for IBM to essentially control the government.
Apparently you are willing to be a lot more delicate than I am when putting together furniture. I have a pretty big house, and there is just no room to maneuver with that 'a box under each corner' nonsense.
Then you buy a new house and nothing fits in it anymore. The last house I bought came with real wood furniture because it was unrealistically heavy for the previous owners to move to the place they were going. It didn't suit our style and we couldn't sell it for anything, so ended up giving it all to our movers for free if they would take it out.
Slashdot Mirror
We will only see wide adoption of the technologies if almost all of the worst drivers can afford it. That isn't going to happen any time soon.
So your argument is that laws and threat of penalization or incarceration don't work on a general basis? If there were no punishment for stealing from a corner store, no more people would do it? That's a fairly difficult stance to defend.
I am also arguing against making automation a special case. I am not liable as a passenger in a bus or a taxi because I am not driving it, nor do I have realistic influence over the person driving it. Therefore I should not be liable for the actions of an automated car, even if i own it. Maybe we are making the same argument.
It's fine if the cost is passed on equally through the cost of the car. I just don't want to be the poor schmuck who pays twice the premium as anyone else because his personal automated vehicle thought a trailer crossing the road was a bridge in the distance. If the cost of that gets passed equally to all owners of the same vehicle then fine.
I guess I don't follow your argument since neither of your examples apply to automated driving at all. If an automated vehicle rolls down an incline when parked then it's not the passenger's fault because the parking brake should be automated. If the parking brake isn't automated then it's not a fully automated car.
How does anyone 'control AI'? A business can place threats of penalties on employees that don't drive safe, it can put numbers of vehicles to call if the drive is reckless, it can give its employees defensive driving training; none of these can be done with AI.
Come to think of it, there isn't really any reason for the tire to be damaged since the car shouldn't drive into anything. If the tire is damaged, it may be from vandalism but the owner might not even be aware of that. So still all liability should be with the company.
Why would an automated car not have the parking and emergency brake automated? I will grant you, if the owner doesn't change a damaged tire and it blows while driving, it may get a bit grey as to whether the automated car should have been able to handle the situation or not. However, those should only be in very rare cases. Probably the automated car should not work if the tire lacks pressure, or if the brake pads are worn, etc.
Nope. In that case, the business controls the drivers who control the car so of course there needs to be insurance for liability. A business buying self driving cars from Google should not be liable either, since there is nothing they can do to control the car. Yes you may want to insure against external forces such as vandalism or fire, but why would anyone pay for liability for something they do not control?
No, your example is more like what he have now. When you go out on the street or into a public place, you know you are taking a certain risk that is made as manageable as possible by safety and health regulations. Introducing the unknown complexity of self driving to the mix is more akin to testing a new aerosol vaccine on crowds of unknowing people.
If I am in a self driving car, I cannot be liable for anything since I am not controlling it. How is it not new that I shouldn't need insurance for a car that I own? I don't care if it is a 0.001% chance that it gets in an accident, it has nothing to do with me since I'm not driving.
Don't just "expect that" automation will save lives, especially since nothing has been proven. Any automation on the road today either A) is used in a controlled environment, B) is severely limited where it can be used, backed up by the 'human still has to pay attention' bull, and/or C) has a dedicated human driver taking control when it gets into trouble. Let them prove that they *can* save lives, then maybe let them on the road.
50,000 people a year die on American roads, yet people still use them. Imagine that! They must be happy with the risk they incur by using American roads. It doesn't make it right to change the game on them by allowing companies to put automation on the roads who have shown us a clear history of reducing costs over reducing safety.
first by ending up with a horrible reputation for being consumer aggressive
Since when has that stopped any company?
Not only does it leave consumers as guinea pigs, it makes every non-participating driver, cyclist, and pedestrian a guinea pig. When someone dies from a flaw in self driving, will they consider it a good trade off if maybe fifty years down the road we start to see a decrease in road deaths from the technology? Will they understand why their family paid the price? Full liability on the part of the vendor introducing a self driving technology should be a minimum requirement.
You hit the nail on the head. The lack of places for growth are just causing the rich to leverage their power to get richer without benefiting the poorer. Trickle down economics would work if there was a place for valid growth because that would generate jobs, but there just isn't.
Except the government is the only entity that has the purpose of standing up equally for all people. I'm sorry you Americans have a crappy government, but you really need to become active in making it the government it should be, rather than distrusting any government anywhere, including your own.
Furthermore, in the richer country the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The people bearing the brunt of this are people who are struggling in the rich country in the first place.
If you look at how little living standards are actually increased versus the very few that are actually getting a vastly disproportionate benefit from it (hint: these people don't have an issue with living standards in the first place), it is still a valid point. It's no different than heads of humanitarian aid organizations living in big North American mansions.
To be fair, even the government admits that the problem was mishandling on the government side. The contract specifically gave the government full control over the project since they were worried the alternative was for IBM to essentially control the government.
We're doing something we think is cool, fuck whomever it doesn't work for.
Oh I left shortly after.
Apparently you are willing to be a lot more delicate than I am when putting together furniture. I have a pretty big house, and there is just no room to maneuver with that 'a box under each corner' nonsense.
A double bed comes in three boxes a foot wide. How is that supposed to work?
Then you buy a new house and nothing fits in it anymore. The last house I bought came with real wood furniture because it was unrealistically heavy for the previous owners to move to the place they were going. It didn't suit our style and we couldn't sell it for anything, so ended up giving it all to our movers for free if they would take it out.