Hilarious. No, not the shady tactics - the fact that companies like Uber and Lyft whine about being regulated as taxi services, arguing that they are not taxi services, then getting into the same sort of idiotic, self-harming feuds that forced the government to start regulating taxi services.
Yes... so there would have to be a statistically measurable difference between accident rates from people who have automated cars vs people who drive them manually. This will take quite a long time for enough data to be collected to have statistical significance with respect to the actual number of automobiles that are on the road.
That sounds a lot more logical and reasonable than all the "OMG UR A SHITY DRIVER" arguments I've seen.
OK, so I just read through a random handful of those slides... and I'm not sure "Toyota code is horrifying" properly characterizes that absolute clusterfuck.
However, that reference does serve to further my contention that putting all the vehicle's functions into the hands of the same people who apparently can't write decent code for a single sensor is a really, really, terribly bad idea.
Communism is not a tool. Like a wrench, a computer or even a tax.
Communism is a philosophy. It puts too much power in the hands of too few and has inevitable evil outcomes.
Every human construct is a tool, even philosophies - they are applied to others in order to influence thinking, the way a hammer is applied to a nail, in order to influence it's position.
Even as a pure philosophy (taking the human factor out), communism is a tool to move ownership of the means of production (also tools) from the oligarchs to the workers.
Yes it is part of the deal... Until they have demonstrated reliability at being safer than human drivers with several years of data over many millions of vehicles.
... under all the varying road conditions that most humans successfully navigate today.
Consider how many people die on the roads every year in the United States alone, the biggest factor is humans.
Kind of - it's really more "improperly trained humans."
Properly trained humans, ie professional drivers, statistically get into less collisions as non-trained humans, thus negating the "it's humans" hypothesis.
Since we already have millions of manually operated automobiles, as well as a culture that values the ability to travel anywhere at anytime for any reason, it occurs to me that the most economically and socially reasonable solution is to increase driver training requirements, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is where I am as well - from a safety standpoint, similar gains can be demonstrably achieved with a national, reasonable standard training requirement for licensing drivers, without any major, expensive technological changes.
But then, you can't effectively control the travel of properly trained drivers operating independent automobiles, now can you?
Autonomous cars need to prove that they're capable of being safer than operator-driven cars. Right now they haven't done so, and until there's data there will be a need for autonomous cars to be manually operatable.
Sure they have. Driverless cars have driven thousands of miles without making a single mistake. That error rate is already better than virtually any human could achieve.
How have they fared in adverse conditions, like deep snow, accumulating ice, or muddy, washout conditions?
We need to start pushing for formal regulations with regard to what the cars will do when a collision between vehicles is inevitable. Should your car drive off a bridge, killing you, if it means saving a school bus full of kids? Probably. But I'd like to know how such failure modes are defined.
You are obviously not an automotive engineer.
Or a lawyer.
Here's a protip: engineering ethics == taking legal responsibility for the results.
So the real question isn't, "will cars be programmed with ethics," but rather, "will any car companies be stupid enough to make themselves legally culpable for deaths caused by their products?"
And of course, phrased in that manner, the answer becomes obvious.
Brakes on cars only really work right when there are no other forces acting at the same time. Throttle on? Brake will be ineffective. Going downhill at a high rate of speed? Brake will be less effective. Being pushed? Brake will be ineffective.
In before the pedants:
Assuming enough force to overcome the holding force of the brake pads/shoes against the rotor/drum, of course. I.e., another car pushing would overcome, whereas a single human pushing probably would not.
or at least allow for an emergency override that interrupts the computer entirely if the main 'stop the car now' brake fails to work properly.
That's called an "emergency brake".
Incorrect - it is called a "parking brake." It is not designed for use in emergencies, but rather to prevent damage to the transmission caused by tension between the parking pawl and planetary assembly.
You do NOT want to use the parking brake as an emergency stopping measure - for starters, that wussy little handle/cable assembly does not apply nearly as much force on the pads/shoes as you seem to think they do. Also, locking wheels while in motion is a great way to start an uncontrolled skid, as well as creating flat spots on your tires and overheating your brake fluid to the point of failure.
That is very short term thinking. 15 years after driverless cars are released your going to have a whole generation of people who never learned to drive a car. People who get the license and then forget everything because they haven't touched the wheel in 10 years. There is not going to be anyone quilified to drive a car. You will just have millions of amatuers with a skill level of a 16 year old.
The futurist in me envisions this occurring about 5 years after the bloodless, peaceful transition to an economy where robots do all the work.
The futurist in me is an exceedingly sardonic asshole, if you haven't picked that up already.
I'm not the one claiming "voters want that" because the groups I choose to support bankroll the effort.
NOTHING happens in US politics without a billionaire backing it. Nothing at all. No matter how badly the public wants it.
Thus (further) negating your previous claim.
I merely posited that this is slightly more common on the left side of the spectrum because the interests of liberal billionaires are slightly closer to the public interest in the first place.
Because that's what you want to believe, not because it's a statement of empirical fact. Ergo, naivete.
I cannot fathom how someone could be arguing in 2014 that Communism isn't evil.
In the same way that someone could argue that a firearm or automobile isn't evil* - Tools do not have emotions, nor the ability to differentiate from right and wrong, and thus are physically incapable of being either "good" nor "evil."
* Sentient death-mobiles a la Christine notwithstanding.
>I can find plenty of astroturfing groups that are soros backed and do the same thing, but that doesn't make it "front page news."
Maybe it's because, mostly when liberal organisations fund something, it's something the majority of voters wanted anyway ?
You're both wrong, actually.
For OP, the trick is in the source: Sure, HuffPo isn't going to post any articles that point out how Soros uses his riches to influence government in the exact same method as the Koch brothers, albeit tugging in the opposite direction, but FOX will sure make it "front page news." Vice-versa is also the case.
For you, well, that statement is just wishful thinking. Basically, if you have one or two super-rich guys bankrolling the whole she-bang, it's a safe bet that the majority in fact do not want whatever it is, because if we did then the effort wouldn't need the backing of a billionaire.
Also, tyranny of the majority ist verboten in the US, thanks to the design of our constitutional republic.
They were going to start putting in "killswitches" anyway - too much worldwide governmental pressure not to. Methinks that line in the summary is the result of wishful, "look-how-important-I-feel" thinking.
Those mistakes will lead to lawsuits. You were injured when a vehicle manufactured by "Artificially Intelligent Motors, inc (AIM, inc)" hit you by "choice". That "choice" was programmed into that vehicle at the demand of "AIM, inc" management.
So no. No company would take that risk. And anyone stupid enough to try would not write perfect code and would be sued out of existence after their first patch.
Considering how bloody obvious that outcome seems to be, it amazes me how some educated people just flat out don't get it.
Or rather, it would amaze me, if I weren't fully aware of the human mind's ability to perform complex mental gymnastics in order to come to a predetermined conclusion, level of education notwithstanding.
And that is why autonomous cars will NEVER be programmed with a "choice" to hit person X in order to avoid hitting person A.
I completely, totally, utterly, and vehemently disagree with you on that.
Given a choice, I think autonomous cars at some point WILL be programmed with such a choice. For example, hitting an elderly person in order to avoid hitting a small child.
Which creates liability for the company that wrote the code, because it can and will be construed that the car was designed to intentionally harm someone, and it doesn't matter that it was intentionally avoiding someone else.
Which is why I agree with OP that such a system is never going to be implemented. Not by anyone who doesn't want to be sued into oblivion.
Slashdot Mirror
Hilarious. No, not the shady tactics - the fact that companies like Uber and Lyft whine about being regulated as taxi services, arguing that they are not taxi services, then getting into the same sort of idiotic, self-harming feuds that forced the government to start regulating taxi services.
History, on a loop!
Yes... so there would have to be a statistically measurable difference between accident rates from people who have automated cars vs people who drive them manually. This will take quite a long time for enough data to be collected to have statistical significance with respect to the actual number of automobiles that are on the road.
That sounds a lot more logical and reasonable than all the "OMG UR A SHITY DRIVER" arguments I've seen.
OK, so I just read through a random handful of those slides... and I'm not sure "Toyota code is horrifying" properly characterizes that absolute clusterfuck.
Outliers at this point, thankfully.
However, that reference does serve to further my contention that putting all the vehicle's functions into the hands of the same people who apparently can't write decent code for a single sensor is a really, really, terribly bad idea.
You DO want to use it when your other systems fail.
Well OK, you might WANT to use it, but I maintain that it's not wise to fulfill that urge.
Communism is not a tool. Like a wrench, a computer or even a tax.
Communism is a philosophy. It puts too much power in the hands of too few and has inevitable evil outcomes.
Every human construct is a tool, even philosophies - they are applied to others in order to influence thinking, the way a hammer is applied to a nail, in order to influence it's position.
Even as a pure philosophy (taking the human factor out), communism is a tool to move ownership of the means of production (also tools) from the oligarchs to the workers.
Yes it is part of the deal... Until they have demonstrated reliability at being safer than human drivers with several years of data over many millions of vehicles.
... under all the varying road conditions that most humans successfully navigate today.
Consider how many people die on the roads every year in the United States alone, the biggest factor is humans.
Kind of - it's really more "improperly trained humans."
Properly trained humans, ie professional drivers, statistically get into less collisions as non-trained humans, thus negating the "it's humans" hypothesis.
Since we already have millions of manually operated automobiles, as well as a culture that values the ability to travel anywhere at anytime for any reason, it occurs to me that the most economically and socially reasonable solution is to increase driver training requirements, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is where I am as well - from a safety standpoint, similar gains can be demonstrably achieved with a national, reasonable standard training requirement for licensing drivers, without any major, expensive technological changes.
But then, you can't effectively control the travel of properly trained drivers operating independent automobiles, now can you?
Sure they have. Driverless cars have driven thousands of miles without making a single mistake. That error rate is already better than virtually any human could achieve.
How have they fared in adverse conditions, like deep snow, accumulating ice, or muddy, washout conditions?
We need to start pushing for formal regulations with regard to what the cars will do when a collision between vehicles is inevitable. Should your car drive off a bridge, killing you, if it means saving a school bus full of kids? Probably. But I'd like to know how such failure modes are defined.
You are obviously not an automotive engineer.
Or a lawyer.
Here's a protip: engineering ethics == taking legal responsibility for the results.
So the real question isn't, "will cars be programmed with ethics," but rather, "will any car companies be stupid enough to make themselves legally culpable for deaths caused by their products?"
And of course, phrased in that manner, the answer becomes obvious.
I'd like to see self-driving cars have some kind of fail-safe mechanical brake (where power is required to hold the friction surfaces apart)
That's essentially how air brakes in big rig trucks work - default to locked, air holds them open.
... a break pedal... you would want a braking system installed... engage an manual break system.
How the hell did you even do that?
Brakes on cars only really work right when there are no other forces acting at the same time. Throttle on? Brake will be ineffective. Going downhill at a high rate of speed? Brake will be less effective. Being pushed? Brake will be ineffective.
In before the pedants:
Assuming enough force to overcome the holding force of the brake pads/shoes against the rotor/drum, of course. I.e., another car pushing would overcome, whereas a single human pushing probably would not.
or at least allow for an emergency override that interrupts the computer entirely if the main 'stop the car now' brake fails to work properly.
That's called an "emergency brake".
Incorrect - it is called a "parking brake." It is not designed for use in emergencies, but rather to prevent damage to the transmission caused by tension between the parking pawl and planetary assembly.
You do NOT want to use the parking brake as an emergency stopping measure - for starters, that wussy little handle/cable assembly does not apply nearly as much force on the pads/shoes as you seem to think they do. Also, locking wheels while in motion is a great way to start an uncontrolled skid, as well as creating flat spots on your tires and overheating your brake fluid to the point of failure.
The More You Know...
That is very short term thinking. 15 years after driverless cars are released your going to have a whole generation of people who never learned to drive a car. People who get the license and then forget everything because they haven't touched the wheel in 10 years. There is not going to be anyone quilified to drive a car. You will just have millions of amatuers with a skill level of a 16 year old.
The futurist in me envisions this occurring about 5 years after the bloodless, peaceful transition to an economy where robots do all the work.
The futurist in me is an exceedingly sardonic asshole, if you haven't picked that up already.
You're a bit naive there.
I'm not the one claiming "voters want that" because the groups I choose to support bankroll the effort.
NOTHING happens in US politics without a billionaire backing it. Nothing at all. No matter how badly the public wants it.
Thus (further) negating your previous claim.
I merely posited that this is slightly more common on the left side of the spectrum because the interests of liberal billionaires are slightly closer to the public interest in the first place.
Because that's what you want to believe, not because it's a statement of empirical fact. Ergo, naivete.
I cannot fathom how someone could be arguing in 2014 that Communism isn't evil.
In the same way that someone could argue that a firearm or automobile isn't evil* - Tools do not have emotions, nor the ability to differentiate from right and wrong, and thus are physically incapable of being either "good" nor "evil."
* Sentient death-mobiles a la Christine notwithstanding.
Have you ignorant people *still* not gotten over this whole "ignorant people are SUPER EASY to manipulate" thing yet?
FTFY.
>I can find plenty of astroturfing groups that are soros backed and do the same thing, but that doesn't make it "front page news."
Maybe it's because, mostly when liberal organisations fund something, it's something the majority of voters wanted anyway ?
You're both wrong, actually.
For OP, the trick is in the source: Sure, HuffPo isn't going to post any articles that point out how Soros uses his riches to influence government in the exact same method as the Koch brothers, albeit tugging in the opposite direction, but FOX will sure make it "front page news." Vice-versa is also the case.
For you, well, that statement is just wishful thinking. Basically, if you have one or two super-rich guys bankrolling the whole she-bang, it's a safe bet that the majority in fact do not want whatever it is, because if we did then the effort wouldn't need the backing of a billionaire.
Also, tyranny of the majority ist verboten in the US, thanks to the design of our constitutional republic.
They were going to start putting in "killswitches" anyway - too much worldwide governmental pressure not to. Methinks that line in the summary is the result of wishful, "look-how-important-I-feel" thinking.
Those mistakes will lead to lawsuits. You were injured when a vehicle manufactured by "Artificially Intelligent Motors, inc (AIM, inc)" hit you by "choice". That "choice" was programmed into that vehicle at the demand of "AIM, inc" management.
So no. No company would take that risk. And anyone stupid enough to try would not write perfect code and would be sued out of existence after their first patch.
Considering how bloody obvious that outcome seems to be, it amazes me how some educated people just flat out don't get it.
Or rather, it would amaze me, if I weren't fully aware of the human mind's ability to perform complex mental gymnastics in order to come to a predetermined conclusion, level of education notwithstanding.
Because it wouldn't be a liability to anyone anymore. Imagine zero crashes. That's an extreme, but let's assume that for the sake of argument.
Sure, and next we can talk about economics assuming that there really is such a thing as a free market.
Or, let's not, since "most unlikely circumstance possible" is a really shitty basis for the sake of any argument.
And that is why autonomous cars will NEVER be programmed with a "choice" to hit person X in order to avoid hitting person A.
I completely, totally, utterly, and vehemently disagree with you on that.
Given a choice, I think autonomous cars at some point WILL be programmed with such a choice. For example, hitting an elderly person in order to avoid hitting a small child.
Which creates liability for the company that wrote the code, because it can and will be construed that the car was designed to intentionally harm someone, and it doesn't matter that it was intentionally avoiding someone else.
Which is why I agree with OP that such a system is never going to be implemented. Not by anyone who doesn't want to be sued into oblivion.
Send my best wishes then to the middlemen who WON'T exist when Tesla Motors and companies like them eventually sell direct.
Equally, send my regards to Carnac the Magnificent, since you seem capable of channeling him.