Strictly adhering to a speed limit doesn't make you a safe driver. Driving according to road conditions, your alertness level, and your car's ability does.
All of which are routinely mis-estimated by people who think they're better drivers than everybody else.
No disagreement here. Perhaps we should try German approach of autobahns and very strict graduated licensing?
I would suggest that all-automated scenario would be more efficient not because robots would always obey traffic rules, but because it is possible to achieve superior level of coordination once you remove humans.
When you define problem space this way I could only see two solutions: 1. Ban rigidly-abiding robots from the roads 2. Ban idiotic humans from the roads
I hope you can see that 1. is by far more economical and feasible solution, especially considering we have a shortage of rigidly-abiding robots and over-supply of idiotic humans.
Besides, all of the robot crashes have been minor fender benders. It may be worth living with double the rate of those if the serious crashes that injure people are perhaps halved.
Bingo. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury?"
Not quite. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury for a desired level of traffic throughput.
If all we wanted to do is reduce injury, we could enforce 10 mph speed limit with automatic speed traps and draconian fines and completely eliminate any kind of traffic-related injury.
I am not sure why you brought road rage into this discussion, unless you consider routine traffic violations an example of road rage.
To make my argument easier for you to understand: Strictly adhering to a speed limit doesn't make you a safe driver. Driving according to road conditions, your alertness level, and your car's ability does. For example, by backing up traffic by strictly following 60 mph speed limit on a sunny clear day on a straight road you probably killed 0.001 humans. If you do this regularly, then over years you can rake up higher death toll than a drunk driver.
If you want to eliminate accidents the simplest way is to ban all driving. We don't do that, because what we really are after is reduction of accidents for any given throughput of transportation system. It is difficult to measure throughput, so we approximate it by miles driven.
Every adherent of "rigid rule-based" approach ignores the death toll caused by increased traffic as a result of rigidly following all rules. It is easy to measure direct fatalities caused by traffic accidents, but gridlock and traffic snarls are non cost-less.
I would argue that in a human driver dominated system the economic costs of rigidly following all traffic rules will greatly exceed any savings as a result of reduction in traffic accidents.
We could put big soft bumpers on AI cars and paint them bright orange. Perhaps white Lexus wasn't such a good platform choice?
Still, if it is necessary for humans to change and adapt to make autonomous driving a possibility, then it is clear indication that AI is not up to the task of driving by itself.
Most of the human-involved systems have some form of feedback loop, sometimes in a form of honking, middle fingers and speeding tickets, baked into the system. Such dynamic systems and are capable of adjusting to a wide range of situations. Traffic laws presently lack such feedback loop, are very rarely could be dynamically adjusted.
Once we apply control system concepts to this, it becomes immediately obvious that any system of rigid adherence to traffic laws is a lot less efficient than more flexible system based on human-to-human interactions and learning.
The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways.
All of this is true, yet accident rate of these idiotic humans is half of what rigidly-abiding robots are. Perhaps, driving like an idiot in all sorts of unpredictable ways is the right approach to reducing accidents in a system that presently dominated by idiots driving in all sorts of unpredictable ways?
Ignorance (e.g. talking to Bill Gates about shutting down internet), reduction of complex geopolitical issues to populism non-solutions (e.g. Wall with Mexico), and complete disregard for values enshrined by the constitution (e.g. screen out Muslims at the border).
Out of curiosity, what exactly resonates with you out of all that Trump says?
Just because you don't see the problem, doesn't mean that signs are not already there. Just consider how popular Trump is. His constituency are people who "made bad choices or were too stupid to learn". It doesn't take complete societal collapse for the bad guys to come to power via democratic-ish process. Just look at post WW1 Germany.
Why won't you think of the children?! Monster like Eric Posner degrades entire fabric of our society by his poisonous throw-back ideology that squarely aimed at undermining our liberties. He deserves to be jailed, for greater good!
Eric Posner suggest we jail people we find engaging in objectionable ideas. I find Eric Posner's ideas highly objectionable, therefore following his suggested approach we should throw him, and anyone visiting Slate, into jail and throw away the keys.
State is more than capable of effective propaganda (or counter-propaganda). If ISIS is such existential threat, then correct approach to defeat their speech is more speech. For a fraction of what it costs to bomb them US Gov't can create top-notch documentaries and satire to effectively neutralize the threat.
Those willing to give up their freedoms... and all that.
Alternatively, if "got mine" folks prevail some of us will be living in fortified enclaves protected by killbots while the rest will be roaming Mad Max-style elsewhere.
Consequences of your approach playing out all over middle east. People who "made bad choices or were too stupid to learn" are not going to go out quietly. They will radicalize, they will vote for Trump-like candidates, they will turn to life of crime.
You are absolutely correct, life is a competition... and nobody enforcing the rules. Our civilization is about 3 missed meals away from collapsing and then rules completely change, and big dumb burly guys willing to murder everyone around would go to the top of the food chain, and smart people interested in intellectual work go to the bottom.
This mentality is what allowed company towns and effective lifetime servitude in the past century. Companies will define White as Black if it is more profitable to do so, and will try to convince you that starving to death ind debtor's jail is a socially acceptable alternative to taking their shitty terms.
You are out of touch. Think of all the uneducated and under employed people that are getting squeezed out by automation. Changing jobs is a serious hardship for some non-zero subset of these people. There are people out there, working for WallMart or driving for Uber, who have no feasible Plan B.
Let me put it into terms you might understand. If someone has a choice to drive for Uber or go back on the dole, what would you rather they do? So you are saying it is not our problem, let them make their choices? In that case, welcome to United States of Trump, if not the Donald and this time, then someone like him next time is what that choice is going to be.
My very unideal solution is to archive individual relevant emails under 'relevant emails' folder as plain text files. Otherwise, I don't retain emails and intentionally purge them. This way, when becomes taboo in near or far future, it won't be easy to dig through my digital trash and establish long-term pattern of 'abuse', allowing me to pretend that I am also outraged at these people still practicing such barbarism. Like not recycling your urine for drinking water. Who doesn't do that in 2035?!
"if you don't make enough money driving for Uber then DON'T drive for them and find a new "job". "
How did this get upvoted? This is rehashing of "if you have nothing to hide" fallacy.
To address this directly. Finding a new job may impose undue hardship. Imagine if you had to put up with an abusive boss at work, and instead of being sympathetic I tell you to find a new job. Maybe you are nearing retirement age Turbo Pascal programmer and this is not really an option.
I though it was one of the Martian Chronicles stories, but when I went looking I couldn't find it. Maybe something I read in Azimovs and misattributed since then.
While I enjoyed reading your informed post, it was clear that you didn't get the actual point of my response. The point was two-fold: a) homage to old SF story where they nuked the last martian city while trying to spectographically detect water b) highlight the imperative to diversify from just one planet in case of designed or natural catastrophe wipes us out.
As to actual colonization - anything short of 'lego' self-assembling mission is doomed to fail. The probability of us finding planet that can sustain earth-like life is abysmally small when constrained by distance, but this probability is more favorable if we could adapt to a planet capable of sustaining organic life. That is, it is easier to adapt to a planet on arrival than try to terraform it before or once we get there.
Slashdot Mirror
Strictly adhering to a speed limit doesn't make you a safe driver. Driving according to road conditions, your alertness level, and your car's ability does.
All of which are routinely mis-estimated by people who think they're better drivers than everybody else.
No disagreement here. Perhaps we should try German approach of autobahns and very strict graduated licensing?
I would suggest that all-automated scenario would be more efficient not because robots would always obey traffic rules, but because it is possible to achieve superior level of coordination once you remove humans.
When you define problem space this way I could only see two solutions:
1. Ban rigidly-abiding robots from the roads
2. Ban idiotic humans from the roads
I hope you can see that 1. is by far more economical and feasible solution, especially considering we have a shortage of rigidly-abiding robots and over-supply of idiotic humans.
Besides, all of the robot crashes have been minor fender benders. It may be worth living with double the rate of those if the serious crashes that injure people are perhaps halved.
Bingo. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury?"
Not quite. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury for a desired level of traffic throughput.
If all we wanted to do is reduce injury, we could enforce 10 mph speed limit with automatic speed traps and draconian fines and completely eliminate any kind of traffic-related injury.
I am not sure why you brought road rage into this discussion, unless you consider routine traffic violations an example of road rage.
To make my argument easier for you to understand: Strictly adhering to a speed limit doesn't make you a safe driver. Driving according to road conditions, your alertness level, and your car's ability does. For example, by backing up traffic by strictly following 60 mph speed limit on a sunny clear day on a straight road you probably killed 0.001 humans. If you do this regularly, then over years you can rake up higher death toll than a drunk driver.
You are over-simplifying problem.
If you want to eliminate accidents the simplest way is to ban all driving. We don't do that, because what we really are after is reduction of accidents for any given throughput of transportation system. It is difficult to measure throughput, so we approximate it by miles driven.
Every adherent of "rigid rule-based" approach ignores the death toll caused by increased traffic as a result of rigidly following all rules. It is easy to measure direct fatalities caused by traffic accidents, but gridlock and traffic snarls are non cost-less.
I would argue that in a human driver dominated system the economic costs of rigidly following all traffic rules will greatly exceed any savings as a result of reduction in traffic accidents.
We could put big soft bumpers on AI cars and paint them bright orange. Perhaps white Lexus wasn't such a good platform choice?
Still, if it is necessary for humans to change and adapt to make autonomous driving a possibility, then it is clear indication that AI is not up to the task of driving by itself.
Most of the human-involved systems have some form of feedback loop, sometimes in a form of honking, middle fingers and speeding tickets, baked into the system. Such dynamic systems and are capable of adjusting to a wide range of situations. Traffic laws presently lack such feedback loop, are very rarely could be dynamically adjusted.
Once we apply control system concepts to this, it becomes immediately obvious that any system of rigid adherence to traffic laws is a lot less efficient than more flexible system based on human-to-human interactions and learning.
The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways.
All of this is true, yet accident rate of these idiotic humans is half of what rigidly-abiding robots are. Perhaps, driving like an idiot in all sorts of unpredictable ways is the right approach to reducing accidents in a system that presently dominated by idiots driving in all sorts of unpredictable ways?
Ignorance (e.g. talking to Bill Gates about shutting down internet), reduction of complex geopolitical issues to populism non-solutions (e.g. Wall with Mexico), and complete disregard for values enshrined by the constitution (e.g. screen out Muslims at the border).
Out of curiosity, what exactly resonates with you out of all that Trump says?
Just because you don't see the problem, doesn't mean that signs are not already there. Just consider how popular Trump is. His constituency are people who "made bad choices or were too stupid to learn". It doesn't take complete societal collapse for the bad guys to come to power via democratic-ish process. Just look at post WW1 Germany.
Why won't you think of the children?! Monster like Eric Posner degrades entire fabric of our society by his poisonous throw-back ideology that squarely aimed at undermining our liberties. He deserves to be jailed, for greater good!
Eric Posner suggest we jail people we find engaging in objectionable ideas. I find Eric Posner's ideas highly objectionable, therefore following his suggested approach we should throw him, and anyone visiting Slate, into jail and throw away the keys.
State is more than capable of effective propaganda (or counter-propaganda). If ISIS is such existential threat, then correct approach to defeat their speech is more speech. For a fraction of what it costs to bomb them US Gov't can create top-notch documentaries and satire to effectively neutralize the threat.
Those willing to give up their freedoms... and all that.
Alternatively, if "got mine" folks prevail some of us will be living in fortified enclaves protected by killbots while the rest will be roaming Mad Max-style elsewhere.
Consequences of your approach playing out all over middle east. People who "made bad choices or were too stupid to learn" are not going to go out quietly. They will radicalize, they will vote for Trump-like candidates, they will turn to life of crime.
You are absolutely correct, life is a competition... and nobody enforcing the rules. Our civilization is about 3 missed meals away from collapsing and then rules completely change, and big dumb burly guys willing to murder everyone around would go to the top of the food chain, and smart people interested in intellectual work go to the bottom.
Thanks. The future is most people on a robot-provided dole, with a handful robots inventing better robots.
Well, I for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
Ummm...because they are the employer?
Which makes the drivers employees...
This mentality is what allowed company towns and effective lifetime servitude in the past century. Companies will define White as Black if it is more profitable to do so, and will try to convince you that starving to death ind debtor's jail is a socially acceptable alternative to taking their shitty terms.
How is that relevant what Uber or Lyft wanted and why do you let them define what is and what isn't a job?
You are out of touch. Think of all the uneducated and under employed people that are getting squeezed out by automation. Changing jobs is a serious hardship for some non-zero subset of these people. There are people out there, working for WallMart or driving for Uber, who have no feasible Plan B.
Let me put it into terms you might understand. If someone has a choice to drive for Uber or go back on the dole, what would you rather they do? So you are saying it is not our problem, let them make their choices? In that case, welcome to United States of Trump, if not the Donald and this time, then someone like him next time is what that choice is going to be.
I always print out my TPS reports that Bob sends out.
My very unideal solution is to archive individual relevant emails under 'relevant emails' folder as plain text files. Otherwise, I don't retain emails and intentionally purge them. This way, when becomes taboo in near or far future, it won't be easy to dig through my digital trash and establish long-term pattern of 'abuse', allowing me to pretend that I am also outraged at these people still practicing such barbarism. Like not recycling your urine for drinking water. Who doesn't do that in 2035?!
"if you don't make enough money driving for Uber then DON'T drive for them and find a new "job". "
How did this get upvoted? This is rehashing of "if you have nothing to hide" fallacy.
To address this directly. Finding a new job may impose undue hardship. Imagine if you had to put up with an abusive boss at work, and instead of being sympathetic I tell you to find a new job. Maybe you are nearing retirement age Turbo Pascal programmer and this is not really an option.
Some people.
I though it was one of the Martian Chronicles stories, but when I went looking I couldn't find it. Maybe something I read in Azimovs and misattributed since then.
While I enjoyed reading your informed post, it was clear that you didn't get the actual point of my response. The point was two-fold: a) homage to old SF story where they nuked the last martian city while trying to spectographically detect water b) highlight the imperative to diversify from just one planet in case of designed or natural catastrophe wipes us out.
As to actual colonization - anything short of 'lego' self-assembling mission is doomed to fail. The probability of us finding planet that can sustain earth-like life is abysmally small when constrained by distance, but this probability is more favorable if we could adapt to a planet capable of sustaining organic life. That is, it is easier to adapt to a planet on arrival than try to terraform it before or once we get there.