So you would rather save one group of people (human drivers) at the expense of another group (passengers of automated cars). Are you saying someone who habitually drives drunk should be saved, while someone who drives regularly and has never been in an accident should die?
Apparently you have never been in a close accident. In that split second there is fear and a surge of adrenaline. That fear sends a message to your brain that you are in danger and that you should avoid the accident.
If automated cars are programmed to avoid accidents at all costs, how did the Tesla run into the trailer? How did a google car turn into a bus because there was a sand bag in it's lane. Automated cars can only be programmed to avoid accidents at all costs if the people programming them can preconceive all accidents.
I've never had a product that could kill me if being used properly. My toaster won't kill me if used as intended. Even a chain saw won't harm anyone unless a human is negligent with it. The human cannot be negligent in a self driving car because they are not controlling the car as they are controlling a chain saw. This is probably why you can't go to home depot and buy a fully automated chain saw because the manufacturers know that it would just be a disaster.
Assuming you like pizza, when you say you like pizza, do you mean the lowest common denominator pizza that may have human excrement for a topping or do you mean your general perception of pizza? It's a fairly simple concept.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have automated cars, just that they should be far better before they are on public roads. If you want to make AI equal to a human, why are they on the road when they can't even pass a basic driving test?
You're talking about exchanging lives of people who would have died in a human accident for people who die in a self-driving one. That's not right either.
Think about it this way. If someone cuts me off in traffic and I run into them because I'm not watching, wouldn't the accident technically be my fault? An accident is your fault unless you have done everything within your power to prevent the accident and it still occurred. Perhaps the AI was not programmed to deal with this situation, that would be the same as a human driver not watching the road because there would have been a disconnect between the sensors and the AI.
Let me add this.. I understand that accidents will still happen, but those should be accidents that would have happened regardless. If they are truly to be as safe as people think they will be, then they can't be making mistakes that most humans would not have made. The bar has to be set higher than that.
It's about fear of being in an accident, and the inconvenience that it brings regardless of whether it is your fault or not. When someone cuts you off, most humans won't say "oh well" and hit them, they will still try to avoid an accident. How do you give AI a fear of this?
The problem is, statistics don't matter if an automated car kills someone in a situation that a human wouldn't have. One day if they are 100x safer, I would hope they would be safe in all situations that a human would be.
They should not be making accidents out of situations that a human would have been able to handle. That is really all I care about. You comment makes sense until you think about what it will be like to lose someone in an accident caused purely by automation. You can't tell them "to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".
We're not talking about laws here or recovery of damages. We're talking about the capability of automated cars, which partly involves automated cars reacting to unexpected situations. They're going to have to drive with humans and some of them will make mistakes. It doesn't mean they shouldn't still be attempting to avoid an accident at least as well as a human.
That only matters once almost all the cars on the road are self driving. They will have to be 'compatible' with unpredictable human drivers for years and years before that happens, if ever.
So people should just go around crashing into people who cut them off then? 'Too bad, you made a mistake, I have no obligation to prevent an accident.' that's bullshit.
The human made a mistake yes, but the self-driving car crashed into him. So now the question is whether a human would have done better in that situation.
The only question that matters is if a human would have avoided the accident. If they could have easily, then this accident was caused by self-driving. It doesn't matter what side of the law Uber was on.
If something is being done to undermine your value in a market then you are being underpaid. It doesn't really matter how much you make. It would be much different if H-1b affected all industries, all jobs equally but the problem is that it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
You just don't understand the answer, apparently.
You're ignoring the other side of the equation - what about the accidents that the autonomous cars don't get in that a human would have?
Wake me up when it happens.
So you would rather save one group of people (human drivers) at the expense of another group (passengers of automated cars). Are you saying someone who habitually drives drunk should be saved, while someone who drives regularly and has never been in an accident should die?
Apparently you have never been in a close accident. In that split second there is fear and a surge of adrenaline. That fear sends a message to your brain that you are in danger and that you should avoid the accident.
You can't conceive how an automated car could get in an accident? They can't even see properly at night yet!
If automated cars are programmed to avoid accidents at all costs, how did the Tesla run into the trailer? How did a google car turn into a bus because there was a sand bag in it's lane. Automated cars can only be programmed to avoid accidents at all costs if the people programming them can preconceive all accidents.
I've never had a product that could kill me if being used properly. My toaster won't kill me if used as intended. Even a chain saw won't harm anyone unless a human is negligent with it. The human cannot be negligent in a self driving car because they are not controlling the car as they are controlling a chain saw. This is probably why you can't go to home depot and buy a fully automated chain saw because the manufacturers know that it would just be a disaster.
Assuming you like pizza, when you say you like pizza, do you mean the lowest common denominator pizza that may have human excrement for a topping or do you mean your general perception of pizza? It's a fairly simple concept.
No, ublowjob.me
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have automated cars, just that they should be far better before they are on public roads. If you want to make AI equal to a human, why are they on the road when they can't even pass a basic driving test?
You're talking about exchanging lives of people who would have died in a human accident for people who die in a self-driving one. That's not right either.
Think about it this way. If someone cuts me off in traffic and I run into them because I'm not watching, wouldn't the accident technically be my fault? An accident is your fault unless you have done everything within your power to prevent the accident and it still occurred. Perhaps the AI was not programmed to deal with this situation, that would be the same as a human driver not watching the road because there would have been a disconnect between the sensors and the AI.
Let me add this.. I understand that accidents will still happen, but those should be accidents that would have happened regardless. If they are truly to be as safe as people think they will be, then they can't be making mistakes that most humans would not have made. The bar has to be set higher than that.
I concede that companies should not profit from products that might kill people. That is all that I concede.
It's about fear of being in an accident, and the inconvenience that it brings regardless of whether it is your fault or not. When someone cuts you off, most humans won't say "oh well" and hit them, they will still try to avoid an accident. How do you give AI a fear of this?
The problem is, statistics don't matter if an automated car kills someone in a situation that a human wouldn't have. One day if they are 100x safer, I would hope they would be safe in all situations that a human would be.
They should not be making accidents out of situations that a human would have been able to handle. That is really all I care about. You comment makes sense until you think about what it will be like to lose someone in an accident caused purely by automation. You can't tell them "to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".
We're not talking about laws here or recovery of damages. We're talking about the capability of automated cars, which partly involves automated cars reacting to unexpected situations. They're going to have to drive with humans and some of them will make mistakes. It doesn't mean they shouldn't still be attempting to avoid an accident at least as well as a human.
That's idiotic.
That only matters once almost all the cars on the road are self driving. They will have to be 'compatible' with unpredictable human drivers for years and years before that happens, if ever.
So people should just go around crashing into people who cut them off then? 'Too bad, you made a mistake, I have no obligation to prevent an accident.' that's bullshit.
The human made a mistake yes, but the self-driving car crashed into him. So now the question is whether a human would have done better in that situation.
The only question that matters is if a human would have avoided the accident. If they could have easily, then this accident was caused by self-driving. It doesn't matter what side of the law Uber was on.
If something is being done to undermine your value in a market then you are being underpaid. It doesn't really matter how much you make. It would be much different if H-1b affected all industries, all jobs equally but the problem is that it doesn't.
It's called short term pain for long term gain. They pay the least for lodging here to use it at home.