3 ms·

I don't know if this is really the best example. That said, I am very frightened about the closed-source software that will be running in these cars.

jonknee 11y ago
> That said, I am very frightened about the closed-source software that will be running in these cars. That is perfectly valid, but currently we have humans who vary widely in skills and reaction times who are controlling cars. I'll take closed-source software over a random person any day.
- krapp 11y ago
  We also have humans who vary widely in skills who are writing software. The same people who allow acceleration and braking to be linked to the entertainment system, and by extension, controllable over the internet. You seem to be assuming the worst possible case for autonomous car software will necessarily be better than the best human driver, but that's not an assumption backed up by reality. More likely (to me) is that, while both humans and autonomous cars might be safe in most situations, the fail states for autonomous cars are likely to be less predictable.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding why I'm concerned about closed-source software in this case. I'm not worried by bugs that will be included unintentionally in the accident-prevention aspects of the code: even if there are bugs they can be fixed and in the long run the software will be better. My concern is the things that will be put into closed source software intentionally: things that monitor where you go, things that can be used to control your car remotely. It adds a very fundamental attack vector in the war governments and corporations are waging on personal freedom and privacy. I would rather take responsibility for the relatively known risk of getting in a car accident than have all of society give up the ability to travel without the permission of their government. As Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

jonknee 11y ago

> That said, I am very frightened about the closed-source software that will be running in these cars. That is perfectly valid, but currently we have humans who vary widely in skills and reaction times who are controlling cars. I'll take closed-source software over a random person any day.

krapp 11y ago
We also have humans who vary widely in skills who are writing software. The same people who allow acceleration and braking to be linked to the entertainment system, and by extension, controllable over the internet. You seem to be assuming the worst possible case for autonomous car software will necessarily be better than the best human driver, but that's not an assumption backed up by reality. More likely (to me) is that, while both humans and autonomous cars might be safe in most situations, the fail states for autonomous cars are likely to be less predictable.
copsarebastards 11y ago
I think you're misunderstanding why I'm concerned about closed-source software in this case. I'm not worried by bugs that will be included unintentionally in the accident-prevention aspects of the code: even if there are bugs they can be fixed and in the long run the software will be better. My concern is the things that will be put into closed source software intentionally: things that monitor where you go, things that can be used to control your car remotely. It adds a very fundamental attack vector in the war governments and corporations are waging on personal freedom and privacy. I would rather take responsibility for the relatively known risk of getting in a car accident than have all of society give up the ability to travel without the permission of their government. As Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."