You seem to think that animal brains are capable of things that Turing machines are not. I wonder why you think that.
The Chinese Room argument only demonstrates that a calculator (e.g. - ALU, FPU, etc.) isn't intelligent. I agree with that. The intelligence lies in the software.
It's more like Social Democracy on steroids than communism. The economic system is still capitalism, but with a minimum (hopefully livable) income guaranteed to every citizen.
Actually, for people to accept handing over control and the fate of their lives to AVs, AVs will have to be much better than your average human driver and not fail in ways that a human would easily handle.
That might be irrational, but that's the way people work.
Yes! The same is true for the Uber car that killed that poor woman. There is simply no good reason these vehicles should not have detected obstacles with which they were about to collide and engaged emergency braking at the very least!
From down thread, maybe it means something to you:
"Time to fix an autopilot command defect beyond the FAA ATP flight standard on an airplane with a professional experience ATP trained crew. About 25-35 seconds, typically 1-3 miles and 400 feet from assigned altitude at 250kts. The navigation aids are external to the flight director and self-testing and validating and basically straight or performance envelope limited commands in 3-dimensional space. Basically aircraft autopilot standard keeps pilots in a 400x400x16000 foot box with any amount of consistency over the period of an hour at cruise. The primary navigation information is GPS accurate to 1/100th of that box.
Time to fix a Telsa autopilot command defect is on the order of 1-3 seconds and the deviation from lane center need be no more than 4 feet (quarter of a lane) at 50kts. The navigation cues to the vehicle are image and lidar detection of objects under any lighting, any color, any weather conditions with or without 4 foot tumbleweeds. The tesal product keeps the pilot within a 10x30x5 foot box at one-tenth the speed with the odds of a crash because of deviating from that box being high over trip with factors of ten more obstacles. The navaid is a mix of 4+ sensors with blah repeatability.
The Tesla autopilot is immensely more complex than the aircraft autopilot just to position itself in the center of an unmarked lane. The people killed by aircraft autopilots are typically pilots with less than 10 hours of systems training for the type and less than 4 hours of experience with the autopilot in actual conditions. Tesla offers what a youtube video to train on the operation of system navigating within 4 feet of a movable barrier at speeds close to 100 feet per second.
The remarkable thing is that Tesla autopilot has not killed more people."
Exactly because the problem is so much vastly harder, then the failure rate of the mechanism will be much higher. Further, when an airplane's autopilot very rarely malfunctions or an unforeseen problem very rarely arises the pilot almost surely has much more time to react and recover than a driver would in a car. You just have a ton more room, time, and safety tolerance flying thousands of feet up in the air in mostly empty space than you do within feet of deadly obstacles and other people on the ground.
These two problems are not at all alike. Their failure modes are not at all alike.
Tesla is getting people killed because their stupid marketing is lulling people into a false sense of security. Regular people think "autopilot" means the car can safely drive itself. It really doesn't matter if these people are misinterpreting the true meaning of autopilot as you see it or not. One death over a poorly named feature is one death too many to keep the stupid name.
Tesla should be ashamed of themselves for not renaming the feature so far.
In 1982 they thought we would have flying cars and replicants that look and act exactly like humans. You aren't that far off that amount of optimism.
No, Dick didn't actually think that, particularly the latter point. It was a novel challenging the reader to consider what it actually means to be human only set in the close enough future so that it wouldn't be utterly alien to its readers.
Trying to analogize me to that belief is ridiculous. Do you know how far technology has advanced in 80 years? Look back and think about it. People are already hard at work on this problem and having good results. It really won't take long before some AV systems are better than your average human drivers. The problem just isn't that difficult.
Once robots are proven as superior drivers to humans then it will become a question of safety. I admit I can't predict how long and hard humans will try to hold onto driving themselves, that's a psychological question and harder to predict, but I do confidently predict AV technology will be pervasive and predominant by the end of this century at the latest.
Allow me to rephrase: the problem of implementing a safe autopilot for a plane is VASTLY, HUGELY easier than implementing a safe autopilot for a car.
There are very good reasons why autopilots for planes have existed for over a century while the first tentative forays into building autopilots for cars have just now begun after many enormous advances in computation, radar, computer vision, sensing, AI, etc., etc., etc.
Most importantly, in a plane if the autopilot can simply maintain altitude and direction, then the vast majority of the time that will be safe for a long period of time. Try to simply go straight in a car for more than 10 seconds and you will likely end up in a ditch at best on all but the biggest and straightest highways.
Do you remember Payne Stewart's death? His plane flew on autopilot across most of central USA and only crashed because it ran out of fuel.
You are comparing apples to Godzilla and saying "yeah, they sound about the same."
You can certainly make the questions progressively more difficult to answer until it basically becomes a six of one, half a dozen of the other situation. My point was that the first question as posed was a no brainer.
To your specific question, no, I would not save 3 80 year olds (smokers or non-smokers) to kill 2 children. The 80 year olds have already lived full lives and are near death regardless due to natural causes. Collectively, the 2 children probably have much more life ahead of them than the 3 80 year olds.
No, I probably wouldn't push it if I knew one of the 2 people would definitely be me because I have a survival instinct and a strong personal bias towards myself and my loved ones.
On the second question, I would be horrified, but I wouldn't call it unjust.
I'm not saying it is a bad feature that should be removed. I'm saying their purposely chosen name for the feature is needlessly dangerous. I guess "Driver Assist" just wasn't sexy enough?
You are wrong. Before this century is out, virtually all transportation will be fully automated and the robots will do a far better job of it than we ever did or could.
Reminds me of those "push this button and ten people with terminal cancer get cured but two other random people die from a meteor strike" questions taught in philosophy classes with the intent of humbling people who might otherwise believe they can quantify their way through every obstacle.
I don't get it. Is that supposed to be a difficult question to answer? I'd push that button until no one had terminal cancer. Then I'd come back and push that button again every time there were at least 10 people with terminal cancer. Hell, I'd probably push it even if there were just 3 people left with terminal cancer -- but I'd try to maximize the collective payoff wherever possible.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think that animal brains are capable of things that Turing machines are not. I wonder why you think that.
The Chinese Room argument only demonstrates that a calculator (e.g. - ALU, FPU, etc.) isn't intelligent. I agree with that. The intelligence lies in the software.
It's more like Social Democracy on steroids than communism. The economic system is still capitalism, but with a minimum (hopefully livable) income guaranteed to every citizen.
Agreed. The time frames most people give about predictions are usually very overly optimistic, but this guy is nuts.
He thinks AI and blockchain are going to have revolutionized our entire society before 2030? Pass whatever you are smoking dude.
And how can you tell the difference between a bird, a cat, a brick and a discarded bag of fast-food packaging?
Humans do that easily all the time. AVs should be at least in the same ballpark as humans in sensing and diagnosing potentially dangerous obstacles.
Actually, for people to accept handing over control and the fate of their lives to AVs, AVs will have to be much better than your average human driver and not fail in ways that a human would easily handle.
That might be irrational, but that's the way people work.
Which is why it is poorly named.
Probably low karma. My karma is 'good', so I get +1 to start, but that's probably just because I don't post here very often.
Seconded!
Yes! The same is true for the Uber car that killed that poor woman. There is simply no good reason these vehicles should not have detected obstacles with which they were about to collide and engaged emergency braking at the very least!
From down thread, maybe it means something to you:
"Time to fix an autopilot command defect beyond the FAA ATP flight standard on an airplane with a professional experience ATP trained crew. About 25-35 seconds, typically 1-3 miles and 400 feet from assigned altitude at 250kts. The navigation aids are external to the flight director and self-testing and validating and basically straight or performance envelope limited commands in 3-dimensional space. Basically aircraft autopilot standard keeps pilots in a 400x400x16000 foot box with any amount of consistency over the period of an hour at cruise. The primary navigation information is GPS accurate to 1/100th of that box.
Time to fix a Telsa autopilot command defect is on the order of 1-3 seconds and the deviation from lane center need be no more than 4 feet (quarter of a lane) at 50kts. The navigation cues to the vehicle are image and lidar detection of objects under any lighting, any color, any weather conditions with or without 4 foot tumbleweeds. The tesal product keeps the pilot within a 10x30x5 foot box at one-tenth the speed with the odds of a crash because of deviating from that box being high over trip with factors of ten more obstacles. The navaid is a mix of 4+ sensors with blah repeatability.
The Tesla autopilot is immensely more complex than the aircraft autopilot just to position itself in the center of an unmarked lane. The people killed by aircraft autopilots are typically pilots with less than 10 hours of systems training for the type and less than 4 hours of experience with the autopilot in actual conditions. Tesla offers what a youtube video to train on the operation of system navigating within 4 feet of a movable barrier at speeds close to 100 feet per second.
The remarkable thing is that Tesla autopilot has not killed more people."
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Exactly because the problem is so much vastly harder, then the failure rate of the mechanism will be much higher. Further, when an airplane's autopilot very rarely malfunctions or an unforeseen problem very rarely arises the pilot almost surely has much more time to react and recover than a driver would in a car. You just have a ton more room, time, and safety tolerance flying thousands of feet up in the air in mostly empty space than you do within feet of deadly obstacles and other people on the ground.
These two problems are not at all alike. Their failure modes are not at all alike.
Tesla is getting people killed because their stupid marketing is lulling people into a false sense of security. Regular people think "autopilot" means the car can safely drive itself. It really doesn't matter if these people are misinterpreting the true meaning of autopilot as you see it or not. One death over a poorly named feature is one death too many to keep the stupid name.
Tesla should be ashamed of themselves for not renaming the feature so far.
In 1982 they thought we would have flying cars and replicants that look and act exactly like humans. You aren't that far off that amount of optimism.
No, Dick didn't actually think that, particularly the latter point. It was a novel challenging the reader to consider what it actually means to be human only set in the close enough future so that it wouldn't be utterly alien to its readers.
Trying to analogize me to that belief is ridiculous. Do you know how far technology has advanced in 80 years? Look back and think about it. People are already hard at work on this problem and having good results. It really won't take long before some AV systems are better than your average human drivers. The problem just isn't that difficult.
Once robots are proven as superior drivers to humans then it will become a question of safety. I admit I can't predict how long and hard humans will try to hold onto driving themselves, that's a psychological question and harder to predict, but I do confidently predict AV technology will be pervasive and predominant by the end of this century at the latest.
You are right. I had the incorrect, knee-jerk assumption that cancer deaths are somewhat uniformly random.
That doesn't undercut my moral reasoning (i.e. - preserving as much life as possible), just my knowledge of the particular statistics.
You are being purposely obtuse.
Allow me to rephrase: the problem of implementing a safe autopilot for a plane is VASTLY, HUGELY easier than implementing a safe autopilot for a car.
There are very good reasons why autopilots for planes have existed for over a century while the first tentative forays into building autopilots for cars have just now begun after many enormous advances in computation, radar, computer vision, sensing, AI, etc., etc., etc.
Most importantly, in a plane if the autopilot can simply maintain altitude and direction, then the vast majority of the time that will be safe for a long period of time. Try to simply go straight in a car for more than 10 seconds and you will likely end up in a ditch at best on all but the biggest and straightest highways.
Do you remember Payne Stewart's death? His plane flew on autopilot across most of central USA and only crashed because it ran out of fuel.
You are comparing apples to Godzilla and saying "yeah, they sound about the same."
You can certainly make the questions progressively more difficult to answer until it basically becomes a six of one, half a dozen of the other situation. My point was that the first question as posed was a no brainer.
To your specific question, no, I would not save 3 80 year olds (smokers or non-smokers) to kill 2 children. The 80 year olds have already lived full lives and are near death regardless due to natural causes. Collectively, the 2 children probably have much more life ahead of them than the 3 80 year olds.
HA! I suggested the exact same name up above! Obviously, that name isn't sexy enough to sell more vehicles so it got nixed.
Aircraft fly in three dimensions in mostly empty space AND have air traffic control monitoring and directing traffic away from each other. WTF?
No, I probably wouldn't push it if I knew one of the 2 people would definitely be me because I have a survival instinct and a strong personal bias towards myself and my loved ones.
On the second question, I would be horrified, but I wouldn't call it unjust.
I'm not saying it is a bad feature that should be removed. I'm saying their purposely chosen name for the feature is needlessly dangerous. I guess "Driver Assist" just wasn't sexy enough?
What the hell does any of that have to do with purposely naming a feature in such a way that it lulls people into a false sense of security???
You are wrong. Before this century is out, virtually all transportation will be fully automated and the robots will do a far better job of it than we ever did or could.
Agreed, and their stupid marketing ploy is killing people.
Reminds me of those "push this button and ten people with terminal cancer get cured but two other random people die from a meteor strike" questions taught in philosophy classes with the intent of humbling people who might otherwise believe they can quantify their way through every obstacle.
I don't get it. Is that supposed to be a difficult question to answer? I'd push that button until no one had terminal cancer. Then I'd come back and push that button again every time there were at least 10 people with terminal cancer. Hell, I'd probably push it even if there were just 3 people left with terminal cancer -- but I'd try to maximize the collective payoff wherever possible.
What is the point to an autopilot if I have to be fully attentive and ready to take over?
Mainly, that is just unfortunate lawyer CYA language so they have an easy cop out for situations like this.
"Oh, our ridiculously named system soiled the bed? That's YOUR fault."
'Autopilot is intended for use only with a fully attentive driver'
Your stupid marketing decision is killing people. Seriously.