6 ms·

"Gartner placed autonomous vehicles at the peak of inflated expectations" Sounds about right. I think that we all want to see self driving cars, but I don't th

"Gartner placed autonomous vehicles at the peak of inflated expectations" Sounds about right. I think that we all want to see self driving cars, but I don't think were ready for software with morality. If I'm driving a car filled with kids and I'm faced with the choice of running over the old lady or driving the kids off the cliff I'm pretty confident in what choice I'm going to make. Is that the choice everyone would make? is that the choice the programer made? do I have a morality switch in the car? will it make value judgements about the occupants and the external world when forced to make a bad call? Its going to be interesting times if these things end up on the road.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
melling 11y ago
Yeah, there's always someone with a contrived answer like yours. If 1/10th the people die because the computer isn't perfect, aren't we much better off? Deaths are actually increasing this year: http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602 http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-relat... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths... "In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes (30,296 fatal crashes), killing 32,999 and injuring 2,239,000.[2] The 32,479 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949). Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,551,332 motor vehicle deaths in the United States from 1899 to 2012."
- gress 11y ago
  Self driving cars are by no means the only solution to road deaths.
  - valhalla 11y ago
    Probably true, but they're the most effective tool that would have the greatest singular impact available to us right now.
    - gress 11y ago
      Self driving cars are not available to us right now.
  - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
    That's a truism. What are these solutions, how much do they cost, what are the relative pros/cons compared to self driving cars?
    - gress 11y ago
      That's for self driving car advocates to state, rather than simply raising the bogeyman of road deaths every time there is any commentary that detracts from their position.
      - NhanH 11y ago
        The easiest answer to your argument is for self driving car advocates to claim that it's the ONLY solution to reduce road deaths. Note that you are the one who claimed there are more than one solution.
        gress 11y ago
        Except that that is self-evidently false, and we're not talking about some meaningless argument in a vacuum, but one between humans who have experience of the world.
      - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
        > That's for self driving car advocates to state Uhh what? You said: > Self driving cars are by no means the only solution to road deaths. I asked you "what other solutions?" You're literally pointing at other unnamed solutions as better alternatives to road deaths, it is very reasonable to ask you to be more specific. It is in no way up to driverless car advocates to complete an argument that you made.
        gress 11y ago
        It's fairly obvious that things like pedestrian detection systems with automatic braking, lane departure warnings, tiredness detection, etc. will make a significant difference as they become widespread. These exist in production today and similar technologies are in active development and deployment. There is no reason to believe that human driven cars can't be made safe through technology without requiring self-driving. There may be other benefits to self-driving cars that are desirable, but as I said, the road deaths argument is clearly just fear mongering based on the false idea that other technological safety measures are not being developed. As for costs and numbers - those certainly aren't provided by self driving car advocates, who can't even say when the technology will be available or how basic legal and economic problems it presents will be overcome.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  We are much better off, of course, but that isn't enough to get the thing done. We also need to figure out how the "much better off" gets distributed, in a way that convinces everyone to actually do the thing. If, for instance, Google is held liable for accidents while reducing the overall rate, self-driving cars aren't going to be a thing (unless you fix that particular problem). Or if the victims of self-driving car accidents have difficulty getting compensated.
- zer00eyz 11y ago
  Is my above scenario contrived, yes. Is it demonstrative of the kind of ethical questions that are going to have to be answered by developers, rather than individuals. It absolutely is. If you note I'm not even dismissive of "self driving cars", I only point out that its going to be INTERESTING if we ever see them. The reality is that at some point, some where, some piece of software is going to have to make a very hard choice. The road will always have exposure to irrational actors (kids, drunks, a random person crashing their bike). Are we at a point where we WANT software making that decision? If I have terminal cancer I might make a different choice than if I just had a baby and I was a human behind the wheel. Will we be able to inform the system that were willing to commit self sacrifice? Is there going to be weighing on the system based on ages of those involved? What happens when someone decides to kill themselves by jumping in front of a self driving car? Lets forget about the legal battle that ensues the first time this happens. We will pretend that no lawyers will be allowed to be involved. The guy who wrote the code that said 4 kids > granny do you tell him? Maybe you have to go back and tell him his code killed 4 kids, and NOT granny and he has to fix it, cause that was wrong? I saved 32,999 people in THEORY but I know my code killed 4, they told me, it was a bug, I have to fix it now. Lets look for a real world example where we see some of this today. Train drivers kill people on a fairly regular basis. Some times its because people choose to kill themselves, sometimes it really is an accident where there was no intent on the part of the person killed. Do you know what happens to those folks? Do you realize the impact these actions have on their lives? They certainly do, its part of the job, they get training before they go out and drive, the get counseling after. For some of them IT DOESNT HELP. Stats aren't people, they don't react the way we want or expect. Like I said it is going to be INTERESTING.
  - NhanH 11y ago
    Shouldn't you got the pick the morality of the car you're in? Which will probably ends up with everyone choosing to protect themselves. And if that causes too much externality to society (some kind of Prisoner Dilemma where everyone tries to protect themselves being the worst?), then we have regulation step in and regulate the morality of the systems. It's not going to be easy, but I don't agree it's harder than the gazillions moral choice we already made as a society nowadays.
sandworm101 11y ago
Maybe autodrive cars, but I certainly do not want to see driverless cars. I want meat onboard. Licensed meat. Someone to get the tickets. Someone to sue when the robot does something stupid. Someone with a foot on the hydraulic braking system and mechanical steering for when the electrics fail.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Where is the meat operating Predator/Reaper/Global Hawk drones? Thousands of miles away in an air-conditioned cargo container in the outskirts of Las Vegas.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    The chances of those drones flattening me and my motorcycle are extremely slim.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Motorcycles are already 45 times more dangerous than a car. I have a hard time (even as an ex-motorcycle owner/rider) feeling bad for motorcycle riders who are worried about self-driving cars (which are already better drivers than humans).
      - sandworm101 11y ago
        Except that in many ways a motocycle is no different than a bicycle, wheelchair, pedestrian, moped, horse+rider, or anyone else not wrapped in steal. Cars must share the road with non-cars.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Right. Google and several other tech companies are going to keep pouring vast amounts of money into self-driving tech (to ensure its ability to "share the road with non-cars"), and naysayers are going to yell angrily at clouds. In this case, I appreciate the momentum behind self-driving vehicles. The sooner people are replaced, the better.
stephentmcm 11y ago
Where do you live that little old ladies are jumping out in-front of fast moving traffic with cliff edges that lack any safety barrier?! The car is going to make the best effort to minimise impacts to its self, given there's a cliff for it to fall off it's not going to swerve over it. Also as said in a sister comment while you're car full of precious children go over the cliff you can find peace in the knowledge that on average less children have died because there's self driving cars.
- zer00eyz 11y ago
  I agree that my scenario is contrived. It was meant to be illustrative of the actual ethical dilemmas were going to face when this happens. Does my car have ethics? If I'm terminal can I tell my car that in a me or someone else situation choose them? What other factors come into play if Im not saying I'm willing? Is it age? Does my car have some sense of WHO is involved and makes a decision based on some arbitrary stat? does it flip a coin? In theory 32k people live with self driving cars. In theory 32k people live if we all stop driving. If you are give you the choice of writing two programs, one that prevents cars from working at all or one that is going to kill four kids what program are you going to write? There are a lot of things about this that aren't cut and dry at all. Like I said its going to be interesting if we ever get them.
jfoster 11y ago
How do you cope with situations where the person driving might not be aligned with your decisions? (taxis, Ubers, buses, etc.)
- zer00eyz 11y ago
  It doesn't bother me actually. The point of the clearly contrived situation is to make one think about the ethics involved. If I'm terminal with cancer, can I tell my car that when it gets to a me vs them, that I'm willing to sacrifice myself? What happens when the me vs them scenario is someone attempting to kill themselves by jumping in front of a car? How does the car resolve the conflict in a case where it has NO other parameters? Are we going to say "auto sacrifice car occupant"? Do we have the ability to make a guess based on age of the involved? How about the "value" of the people involved? Would you trust a self driving car built by bill gates in a scenario between you and bill gates to choose you over bill? Like I said, its going to be interesting.
monochromatic 11y ago
I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where I have enough time to consider who should live and who should die, make a decision, and act on it... but not enough time to just brake and avoid the accident.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

melling 11y ago

Yeah, there's always someone with a contrived answer like yours. If 1/10th the people die because the computer isn't perfect, aren't we much better off? Deaths are actually increasing this year: http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602 http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-relat... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths... "In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes (30,296 fatal crashes), killing 32,999 and injuring 2,239,000.[2] The 32,479 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949). Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,551,332 motor vehicle deaths in the United States from 1899 to 2012."

gress 11y ago
Self driving cars are by no means the only solution to road deaths.
- valhalla 11y ago
  Probably true, but they're the most effective tool that would have the greatest singular impact available to us right now.
  - gress 11y ago
    Self driving cars are not available to us right now.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  That's a truism. What are these solutions, how much do they cost, what are the relative pros/cons compared to self driving cars?
  - gress 11y ago
    That's for self driving car advocates to state, rather than simply raising the bogeyman of road deaths every time there is any commentary that detracts from their position.
    - NhanH 11y ago
      The easiest answer to your argument is for self driving car advocates to claim that it's the ONLY solution to reduce road deaths. Note that you are the one who claimed there are more than one solution.
      - gress 11y ago
        Except that that is self-evidently false, and we're not talking about some meaningless argument in a vacuum, but one between humans who have experience of the world.
    - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
      > That's for self driving car advocates to state Uhh what? You said: > Self driving cars are by no means the only solution to road deaths. I asked you "what other solutions?" You're literally pointing at other unnamed solutions as better alternatives to road deaths, it is very reasonable to ask you to be more specific. It is in no way up to driverless car advocates to complete an argument that you made.
      - gress 11y ago
        It's fairly obvious that things like pedestrian detection systems with automatic braking, lane departure warnings, tiredness detection, etc. will make a significant difference as they become widespread. These exist in production today and similar technologies are in active development and deployment. There is no reason to believe that human driven cars can't be made safe through technology without requiring self-driving. There may be other benefits to self-driving cars that are desirable, but as I said, the road deaths argument is clearly just fear mongering based on the false idea that other technological safety measures are not being developed. As for costs and numbers - those certainly aren't provided by self driving car advocates, who can't even say when the technology will be available or how basic legal and economic problems it presents will be overcome.
ThrustVectoring 11y ago
We are much better off, of course, but that isn't enough to get the thing done. We also need to figure out how the "much better off" gets distributed, in a way that convinces everyone to actually do the thing. If, for instance, Google is held liable for accidents while reducing the overall rate, self-driving cars aren't going to be a thing (unless you fix that particular problem). Or if the victims of self-driving car accidents have difficulty getting compensated.
zer00eyz 11y ago
Is my above scenario contrived, yes. Is it demonstrative of the kind of ethical questions that are going to have to be answered by developers, rather than individuals. It absolutely is. If you note I'm not even dismissive of "self driving cars", I only point out that its going to be INTERESTING if we ever see them. The reality is that at some point, some where, some piece of software is going to have to make a very hard choice. The road will always have exposure to irrational actors (kids, drunks, a random person crashing their bike). Are we at a point where we WANT software making that decision? If I have terminal cancer I might make a different choice than if I just had a baby and I was a human behind the wheel. Will we be able to inform the system that were willing to commit self sacrifice? Is there going to be weighing on the system based on ages of those involved? What happens when someone decides to kill themselves by jumping in front of a self driving car? Lets forget about the legal battle that ensues the first time this happens. We will pretend that no lawyers will be allowed to be involved. The guy who wrote the code that said 4 kids > granny do you tell him? Maybe you have to go back and tell him his code killed 4 kids, and NOT granny and he has to fix it, cause that was wrong? I saved 32,999 people in THEORY but I know my code killed 4, they told me, it was a bug, I have to fix it now. Lets look for a real world example where we see some of this today. Train drivers kill people on a fairly regular basis. Some times its because people choose to kill themselves, sometimes it really is an accident where there was no intent on the part of the person killed. Do you know what happens to those folks? Do you realize the impact these actions have on their lives? They certainly do, its part of the job, they get training before they go out and drive, the get counseling after. For some of them IT DOESNT HELP. Stats aren't people, they don't react the way we want or expect. Like I said it is going to be INTERESTING.
- NhanH 11y ago
  Shouldn't you got the pick the morality of the car you're in? Which will probably ends up with everyone choosing to protect themselves. And if that causes too much externality to society (some kind of Prisoner Dilemma where everyone tries to protect themselves being the worst?), then we have regulation step in and regulate the morality of the systems. It's not going to be easy, but I don't agree it's harder than the gazillions moral choice we already made as a society nowadays.

sandworm101 11y ago

Maybe autodrive cars, but I certainly do not want to see driverless cars. I want meat onboard. Licensed meat. Someone to get the tickets. Someone to sue when the robot does something stupid. Someone with a foot on the hydraulic braking system and mechanical steering for when the electrics fail.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Where is the meat operating Predator/Reaper/Global Hawk drones? Thousands of miles away in an air-conditioned cargo container in the outskirts of Las Vegas.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  The chances of those drones flattening me and my motorcycle are extremely slim.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Motorcycles are already 45 times more dangerous than a car. I have a hard time (even as an ex-motorcycle owner/rider) feeling bad for motorcycle riders who are worried about self-driving cars (which are already better drivers than humans).
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Except that in many ways a motocycle is no different than a bicycle, wheelchair, pedestrian, moped, horse+rider, or anyone else not wrapped in steal. Cars must share the road with non-cars.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Right. Google and several other tech companies are going to keep pouring vast amounts of money into self-driving tech (to ensure its ability to "share the road with non-cars"), and naysayers are going to yell angrily at clouds. In this case, I appreciate the momentum behind self-driving vehicles. The sooner people are replaced, the better.

stephentmcm 11y ago

Where do you live that little old ladies are jumping out in-front of fast moving traffic with cliff edges that lack any safety barrier?! The car is going to make the best effort to minimise impacts to its self, given there's a cliff for it to fall off it's not going to swerve over it. Also as said in a sister comment while you're car full of precious children go over the cliff you can find peace in the knowledge that on average less children have died because there's self driving cars.

zer00eyz 11y ago
I agree that my scenario is contrived. It was meant to be illustrative of the actual ethical dilemmas were going to face when this happens. Does my car have ethics? If I'm terminal can I tell my car that in a me or someone else situation choose them? What other factors come into play if Im not saying I'm willing? Is it age? Does my car have some sense of WHO is involved and makes a decision based on some arbitrary stat? does it flip a coin? In theory 32k people live with self driving cars. In theory 32k people live if we all stop driving. If you are give you the choice of writing two programs, one that prevents cars from working at all or one that is going to kill four kids what program are you going to write? There are a lot of things about this that aren't cut and dry at all. Like I said its going to be interesting if we ever get them.

jfoster 11y ago

How do you cope with situations where the person driving might not be aligned with your decisions? (taxis, Ubers, buses, etc.)

zer00eyz 11y ago
It doesn't bother me actually. The point of the clearly contrived situation is to make one think about the ethics involved. If I'm terminal with cancer, can I tell my car that when it gets to a me vs them, that I'm willing to sacrifice myself? What happens when the me vs them scenario is someone attempting to kill themselves by jumping in front of a car? How does the car resolve the conflict in a case where it has NO other parameters? Are we going to say "auto sacrifice car occupant"? Do we have the ability to make a guess based on age of the involved? How about the "value" of the people involved? Would you trust a self driving car built by bill gates in a scenario between you and bill gates to choose you over bill? Like I said, its going to be interesting.

monochromatic 11y ago

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where I have enough time to consider who should live and who should die, make a decision, and act on it... but not enough time to just brake and avoid the accident.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]