I mean, if someone put an apple symbol on the back of the device, yes that should not be allowed. It is a trademarked symbol. But patenting the shape of a device? Just dumb.
Continuing your analogy, the Facebook plan is kind of like letting a potato chip company control the limited choice of food and determine what limited choice they feel is best. Potato chips for everyone!
The people working for Facebook are very smart. They can figure out how to attach a freaking tag to an image so that it displays for users from countries whos TOSes it doesn't violate.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yet the freeway is where the worst injuries and deaths will happen if something goes wrong. So especially there, things had better be 100% right for people to use self driving cars in that scenario.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok so as long as Google covers my insurance, and the cost of automated cars is not higher here where there is frequently ice on the road as opposed to in California, and I am not liable for any extra costs and I am not open to possible premium increases in what I am paying, then that's totally fine.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, if someone put an apple symbol on the back of the device, yes that should not be allowed. It is a trademarked symbol. But patenting the shape of a device? Just dumb.
A difference in semantics perhaps. Doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Are you saying that the complaint wasn't about rounded corners after all?
Continuing your analogy, the Facebook plan is kind of like letting a potato chip company control the limited choice of food and determine what limited choice they feel is best. Potato chips for everyone!
The people working for Facebook are very smart. They can figure out how to attach a freaking tag to an image so that it displays for users from countries whos TOSes it doesn't violate.
I am truly shockd that no one has called you a communist yet. Corporations are important!
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it should be for Google to have as part of their insurance policy, with cost distributed across all buyers of the product.
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.
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.
Yet the freeway is where the worst injuries and deaths will happen if something goes wrong. So especially there, things had better be 100% right for people to use self driving cars in that scenario.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ok so as long as Google covers my insurance, and the cost of automated cars is not higher here where there is frequently ice on the road as opposed to in California, and I am not liable for any extra costs and I am not open to possible premium increases in what I am paying, then that's totally fine.