Yes. The car should not make any legal decision, and if the result is to kill the driver that is fate. Anything else is immoral. You don't design consumer products for imagined fantasy. This isn't a fucking game.
If you live surrounded by pikey trash maybe, but if you have the cool million you can just kill them - it fits your mindset so you should have no issue with a 'final solution'.
My god you are stupid. Go troll the other internet scum. Google has a driver in the car because they know the system fails most of the time complexity occurs.
Basic test question from a failed junior survey tech. I'm not going to do your homework. How about you tell me about thyristors and operational amplifiers? You know, the things they are used to control? Come on kid we haven't all day. You should keep studying, and don't let failed classes keep you from graduating.
These are the comments? Blame pedestrians, imagine pseudo-logical scenarios blinded by lack of self-awareness, and the apparently in-vogue 'fuck everybody else'? May God save your souls before the devil welcomes you all into hell.
You failed at studying law, and at even understanding reality. There is nothing except a stop or go command, and the autonomous cars fail even at doing that.
My opinion is it isn't. The other fellow claimed it was with money. There is no contradiction, and even that doesn't matter because it is still illegal to kill people trying.
There is no "knowing" at all. You're imagining choice in a computer controlled system like a fantasy entity, but in reality it is the programmers making a choice from sensor inputs, and the driver not acting to intervene. That makes them and Mercedes liable for killing people.
Claiming some magical response doesn't change reality. You are an idiot. Autonomous driving isn't remotely at that level of decision, it is stop and go. And fails that.
Read this: http://www.rand.org/pubs/resea... - there is no statistical power to any of the claims that "self-driving" is safer, or even as safe as human driven cars. Mercedes-Benz is painting a target on itself for claims it didn't need to make - the function in these situations is to stop the car and nothing else.
AI isn't even remotely comparable. So called "neural network" are guess-and-check summations, and are a a poor substitution for the actual functions of axons an dendrites in a human brain - much less the sophisticated networks they truly create.
Then pay to develop it to the safe level, the public isn't a cheap test-bed. If you want to develop a product pay for the required testing without killing people.
No, my view is based understanding mathematical modeling, especially stochastic ones. Driving deals with trillions of parameters in constantly changing relationships. A human is the only intelligence capable of that flexibility, and any fantasy AI would need to break the laws of physics to be comparable.
Yes. Even if you choose to give up control in a high-risk situation the function of the car must still be to stop, not to cause injury. Give up the power-trip, kid.
More immoral power-trip fantasy, just go back to bed kid. The car must stop, or do everything possible to accomplish that. That is the only legal and ethical response.
Big flaw there is you are assuming equal difficulty in modeling and solving complex dynamical situations. All you need to do is look up those words to see the flaws.
If there's malicious input, then the driver is the problem. Stop and lock the car. If the car has been compromised, then any focus on safety must be assumed to also be compromised. Do everything possible to stop and lock the car.
The above post deserves to be seen. It is the only logical response to the power-trip fantasies otherwise being proposed in this thread. Anything else makes Mercedes-Benz liable as a company.
How about every other existing law? Your fantasy scenario is designed to make you feel important but it just shows that you are immoral and need therapy.
There are already laws against such human behaviors, malicious mischief and destruction of property, etc. There is no need to make a car that kills more people.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The car should not make any legal decision, and if the result is to kill the driver that is fate. Anything else is immoral. You don't design consumer products for imagined fantasy. This isn't a fucking game.
If you live surrounded by pikey trash maybe, but if you have the cool million you can just kill them - it fits your mindset so you should have no issue with a 'final solution'.
My god you are stupid. Go troll the other internet scum. Google has a driver in the car because they know the system fails most of the time complexity occurs.
Basic test question from a failed junior survey tech. I'm not going to do your homework. How about you tell me about thyristors and operational amplifiers? You know, the things they are used to control? Come on kid we haven't all day. You should keep studying, and don't let failed classes keep you from graduating.
These are the comments? Blame pedestrians, imagine pseudo-logical scenarios blinded by lack of self-awareness, and the apparently in-vogue 'fuck everybody else'? May God save your souls before the devil welcomes you all into hell.
I've read more, and understand the issues behind the claim. The claim is wrong.
You failed at studying law, and at even understanding reality. There is nothing except a stop or go command, and the autonomous cars fail even at doing that.
My opinion is it isn't. The other fellow claimed it was with money. There is no contradiction, and even that doesn't matter because it is still illegal to kill people trying.
There is no "knowing" at all. You're imagining choice in a computer controlled system like a fantasy entity, but in reality it is the programmers making a choice from sensor inputs, and the driver not acting to intervene. That makes them and Mercedes liable for killing people.
You're wrong. Read this: https://www.nspe.org/resources...
Claiming some magical response doesn't change reality. You are an idiot. Autonomous driving isn't remotely at that level of decision, it is stop and go. And fails that.
Read this: http://www.rand.org/pubs/resea... - there is no statistical power to any of the claims that "self-driving" is safer, or even as safe as human driven cars. Mercedes-Benz is painting a target on itself for claims it didn't need to make - the function in these situations is to stop the car and nothing else.
It is more complex than the dictionary you're using says, and in practice reality wins. That means not killing people. Try again.
My god you are stupid. Seriously go open one of your textbooks and go sit in a corner trying to read until you understand something new.
AI isn't even remotely comparable. So called "neural network" are guess-and-check summations, and are a a poor substitution for the actual functions of axons an dendrites in a human brain - much less the sophisticated networks they truly create.
Then pay to develop it to the safe level, the public isn't a cheap test-bed. If you want to develop a product pay for the required testing without killing people.
Engineers are and must be ethical, and that is part of the actual professional licensing requirements. Go away kid.
Sure, that's called stopping the car. No need to commit crimes or kill others in the process.
No, my view is based understanding mathematical modeling, especially stochastic ones. Driving deals with trillions of parameters in constantly changing relationships. A human is the only intelligence capable of that flexibility, and any fantasy AI would need to break the laws of physics to be comparable.
Yes. Even if you choose to give up control in a high-risk situation the function of the car must still be to stop, not to cause injury. Give up the power-trip, kid.
More immoral power-trip fantasy, just go back to bed kid. The car must stop, or do everything possible to accomplish that. That is the only legal and ethical response.
Big flaw there is you are assuming equal difficulty in modeling and solving complex dynamical situations. All you need to do is look up those words to see the flaws.
If there's malicious input, then the driver is the problem. Stop and lock the car. If the car has been compromised, then any focus on safety must be assumed to also be compromised. Do everything possible to stop and lock the car.
The above post deserves to be seen. It is the only logical response to the power-trip fantasies otherwise being proposed in this thread. Anything else makes Mercedes-Benz liable as a company.
How about every other existing law? Your fantasy scenario is designed to make you feel important but it just shows that you are immoral and need therapy.
There are already laws against such human behaviors, malicious mischief and destruction of property, etc. There is no need to make a car that kills more people.