9 ms·

One thing I haven't heard much about is how humans and AI drivers will interact. If we all assume that AI cars are going to be very conservative and very compe

One thing I haven't heard much about is how humans and AI drivers will interact. If we all assume that AI cars are going to be very conservative and very competent drivers, will people take advantage of that? Will human drivers become even bigger assholes that cut off AI drivers at every possibility, knowing that an AI will not hit them? Why wait in a big line for an exit, when you know an AI car will always let you in. The AI driver won't even mind, as it has no emotional state, so why not? Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car.

jjoonathan 11y ago
Yes, people will take advantage of AI drivers, but everything will be recorded and I'm sure the autonomous car companies can figure out how to put those recordings to use. Name&shame, sell the info to insurance companies, push to make it an automatic ticket, etc. After a shakedown period a more or less reasonable compromise will surely emerge.
- woofyman 11y ago
  I don't want to live in a society where every car becomes a tool of law enforcement.
  - zkhalique 11y ago
    Unfortunately, that's where things are headed regardless. More cameras, cheaper sensors, big data. Every intersection will eventually give you a red light ticket. Etc etc.
    - pzone 11y ago
      I would hope that my autonomous vehicle comes with a "don't run red lights" option
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    I want to live in a world where law enforcement isn't so pre-occupied dealing with traffic violations.
    - avn2109 11y ago
      That is equivalent to wanting to live in a world wherein local government is adequately funded through ordinary taxation, such that it doesn't resort to highway shakedowns of the people for its operating revenue.
      - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        I actually live in such a country. Most (all?) of northern Europe is well functioning that way. It can work.
        pc86 11y ago
        What's your effective tax rate? I'm being somewhat facetious, but there are several ways to fund local governments, including but not limited to: A. Tax the people directly based on $ASSET (usually income, or property, or a combination of the two). B. Lower direct taxes as well as state and federal grants, and fines from enforcement. As someone who doesn't necessarily mind sending a few dimes on the dollar to the government, and doesn't speed often enough or at such egregious speeds that I'm subject to hyperbolic "highway shakedowns," I kind of prefer B to A because it results in a lower effective tax rate for me.
        bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        Sweden's effective tax rate is 37% on a salary of $100k (2012). UK is about 32%, US about 27% (all read from a graph) [1]. In Sweden this extra tax provides free schooling up to and including university (you even get paid going to higher education US$300+/month in grants), low cost health care with a cost ceiling (US$130/year), affordable child care, social security net, local government owned and (well) managed infrastructure (power, water, fibre, roads, etc.) Our local government is funded through direct taxation. My local government tax rate is 30.2%. Not sure it tells the whole story though. VAT is not included in effective tax rate AFAIK (as defined in the Economist article). [1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/focus-4 http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/focus-4
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    It's almost there. There are license plates readers everywhere, toll booths record your times and toll gates use. Also note, it doesn't have to be a "government" thing, where you'd expect some protection (at least on paper). It can be a completely private affair between the car makers and insurnace companies. In fact it is already almost there and it is called CLUE ( https://www.privacyrights.org/clue-and-you-how-insurers-size-you https://www.privacyrights.org/clue-and-you-how-insurers-size... ) -- a database used by insurance companies to evaluate indivicuals and record the claims they've made in the past. Feed info from these self-driving cars into them and you can't even claim any privacy or constitutional rights were violated.
    - pc86 11y ago
      On my state's main toll road (75 mph speed limit) it is common to be going 90 in the right lane and have most people zip past you like you're standing still. The design of the road only allows one or two places for speed enforcement every 10-15 miles or so. I've long wondered why the toll authority does not simply do the math on entry and exit and send citations to the top 5-10% of speeders. It's generate many thousands of dollars in revenue for sure.
  - avn2109 11y ago
    Too late. Way too late. Bottlenecking transportation is the oldest law enforcement trick in the book. Why do you think they make you tell them all your info during registration, put identifying plates on your vehicle, compile databases of VIN numbers, get access to OnStar tracking computers, etc.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    And I don't want to live in a society where it's a customary for people to take selfish advantage of AI drivers, or any other system for that matter. Maybe it's time to split up societies? Some people seem to value absolute freedom to do anything (and freedom from consequences). Others prefer having things actually work and be nice for everyone.
  - shpx 11y ago
    Some lady did a hit and run, and her new Ford called the police [0]. There are surveillance cameras in the park by my house. I've given up, fighting this is like trying to stop a tsunami. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/07/florida-woman-arrested-hit-and-run-car-calls-police http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/07/florida-wo...
    - pc86 11y ago
      Fighting what? Her Ford "called the police" in that it automatically reported a collision had taken place. You make it sound like it sent a message saying "my owner committed a crime, go get her" which is not what happened. Are you saying the world would be better off if she had gotten away with a hit and run?
  - sanoli 11y ago
    I want to live in a society where less and less people die by reckless driving - make that 'less and less people die by automobile, period'. As far as I can see, only technology will do that, education being the other means but a much less reliable one. If law enforcement only gets involved when a crime is comitted, that's fine by me.
jurassic 11y ago
I don't really see the problem with this. Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists, and the only reason they don't always do so now is because of some impatient humans at the wheel who prioritize their speed over the safety of other road users. Without road-raging human drivers behind the wheel, is the vehicle occupant going to care that they got to nap a few minutes longer on the way to work? Or got to read a few more pages of their novel? Edit to add: Also, I'm looking forward to autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  I think you underestimate how crazy and obnoxious people can be. Take San Francisco, as an example. There are people who are poor and disenfranchised, and mentally ill, who feel that it gives them some power to saunter out into traffic and make everybody stop. With an autonomous car, that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. Take New York as another example. For years I only walked in NYC and I figured that all drivers were maniacs. Then I drove though Manhattan once and I realized the actual dynamic. If a driver doesn't put on a credible appearance of being willing to run down pedestrians, the pedestrians will never stop crossing the street. How does an autonomous car fit into that? I think these cars are going to work brilliantly in very polite and orderly places like Zurich, where everybody takes their turn and neither pedestrians nor bicyclists nor drivers feel put upon by the system. I have no idea how they are going to work here in America where we dump our mentally ill on the streets, and then don't give them sidewalks and crosswalks or any sense of dignity. I have a feeling it's going to work quite poorly.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    >that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. They can do that now unless you are suggesting running them over as a solution.
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      You can jump out of your car and either rationally debate with them the merits of allowing access to the right-of-way, or jump directly to violent threats. The problem with autonomous cars as they are being rationalized to the public is that half the time the car will have no occupants at all. There will be nobody in the car to leap out and shake their fist.
irln 11y ago
If AI driven cars achieve a superior safety record there won't be many human drivers...the insurance premiums will price most people out of the market. That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.
- cpitman 11y ago
  I don't see why the cost would be any higher than it is today. If anything, driver-less cars would have lower insurance premiums. So if you can afford/justify your insurance today, you could still afford it in the future. I could even see all insurance getting cheaper, since the risk of accidents for all cars should decrease as the mix of cars gets more and more automated.
  - Fuzzwah 11y ago
    Insurance companies like to slice their customers up into buckets of similar risk and charge more or less accordingly. Insuring an automated car will be cheaper. Insuring a manually operated car will be more expensive.
    - cpitman 11y ago
      Sure, it will be more expensive than the automated car. But why would it be more expensive than today? Why would automated cars on the road make manually operated cars more risky than they are today?
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        At the moment, there is no other option other than human driving cars. Once automated cars are a realistic option, insurance companies can properly price insurance for human drivers much higher (comparatively speaking). A self-driving car should have almost 0 risk, meaning the vast majority of cars (if self driving) would carry no risk to the insurer.
        11y ago
pool 11y ago
I imagine there would be tickets given out for asshole behaviour.
zuminator 11y ago
To some extent this sounds similar to how people treat public transportation buses now. Drivers and pedestrians behave more recklessly, knowing that the bus operator will go through great lengths to avoid a collision. But you raise the interesting point that it might perversely be safer to make automated cars less safe. Make them just dangerous enough that people won't be deliberately stupid around them.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
For me the bigger question is WRT the ongoing quest to marginalize human beings. Once we automate everything, then what?
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > then what? Whatever we want.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Right. And, this is generally taken to mean that we--now freed of life's pesky minutiae (such as work), which is handled via automation--will all frolic in meadows, wearing fig leaves and pursuing our inner potential. We will subsist off of a basic income and life will simply be as intended, without the need for labor or physical movement for that matter. And, I wonder what it is in human nature or recent history that makes so many believe that this will be even remotely close to how things actually unfold. That property rights will somehow cease to exist or that those who control the various automata won't simply accrete more economic power unto themselves, relying on ever fewer humans with whom to share that power. Yet, somehow, they will share the spoils such that the masses of unnecessary humans may live comfortably without expending the slightest effort. It need not be a full-on sci-fi style dystopic future to be problematic. We are already seeing degrees of the problem. On our relentless quest to automate humans into obsolescence, seems that we should occasionally pause to consider the consequences in the context of what we know to be true of human nature and history.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Peace and prosperity, I hope.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    I think "hope" is the keyword there and, unfortunately, I don't think there's evidence to warrant much of it. See my reply to your sibling.
- 11y ago
lifeformed 11y ago
Maybe the AI cars will have automated systems that report to authorities reckless human drivers.
js2 11y ago
This was the plot of a recent episode of The Good Wife.
bayesianhorse 11y ago
The interaction of AI and manual cars will depend on the general discipline of the drivers. There are countries in the world where according to rumours the traffic rules are somewhat open to interpretation...
DanBC 11y ago
AI Cars are going to have a lot of cameras and always-on recording. Aggressive driving would risk being reported to law enforcement. > Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car. That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads.
- pc86 11y ago
  Jaywalking is a crime for a reason, because it's potentially deadly to the pedestrian. It seems to be much worse in small/mid-size cities (probably because of less overall traffic). I've had people literally jog into my lane then walk the remaining 4 feet to the sidewalk while I slow from 35 to 10 to avoid hitting them. I think if half the cars on the road are autonomous and will just stop no matter what you will not see the decrease in pedestrian injuries and deaths some are expecting.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Jaywalking is a crime for a reason ... in some parts of the world.
  - beardicus 11y ago
    Jaywalking is a crime because automakers wanted it to be. It had more to do with increasing the speed and utility of cars than it did with pedestrian safety (nobody gives a shit, and nobody gets in trouble for killing pedestrians with automobiles) [1]. I hope autonomous cars can help re-enable the peaceful co-existence of multiple modes of transportation on our streets. [1]: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/...
- GVIrish 11y ago
  >> Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car. >That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads. The problem with that is the time period before AI cars are ubiquitous. In my area I've already seen pedestrians act far more carelessly now that the pedestrian right of way laws have been enhanced and there's been an uptick in pedestrian fatalities. Sometimes giving people the impression that something is safe makes them behave so much more recklessly than they would have originally.

jjoonathan 11y ago

Yes, people will take advantage of AI drivers, but everything will be recorded and I'm sure the autonomous car companies can figure out how to put those recordings to use. Name&shame, sell the info to insurance companies, push to make it an automatic ticket, etc. After a shakedown period a more or less reasonable compromise will surely emerge.

woofyman 11y ago
I don't want to live in a society where every car becomes a tool of law enforcement.
- zkhalique 11y ago
  Unfortunately, that's where things are headed regardless. More cameras, cheaper sensors, big data. Every intersection will eventually give you a red light ticket. Etc etc.
  - pzone 11y ago
    I would hope that my autonomous vehicle comes with a "don't run red lights" option
- shkkmo 11y ago
  I want to live in a world where law enforcement isn't so pre-occupied dealing with traffic violations.
  - avn2109 11y ago
    That is equivalent to wanting to live in a world wherein local government is adequately funded through ordinary taxation, such that it doesn't resort to highway shakedowns of the people for its operating revenue.
    - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
      I actually live in such a country. Most (all?) of northern Europe is well functioning that way. It can work.
      - pc86 11y ago
        What's your effective tax rate? I'm being somewhat facetious, but there are several ways to fund local governments, including but not limited to: A. Tax the people directly based on $ASSET (usually income, or property, or a combination of the two). B. Lower direct taxes as well as state and federal grants, and fines from enforcement. As someone who doesn't necessarily mind sending a few dimes on the dollar to the government, and doesn't speed often enough or at such egregious speeds that I'm subject to hyperbolic "highway shakedowns," I kind of prefer B to A because it results in a lower effective tax rate for me.
        bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        Sweden's effective tax rate is 37% on a salary of $100k (2012). UK is about 32%, US about 27% (all read from a graph) [1]. In Sweden this extra tax provides free schooling up to and including university (you even get paid going to higher education US$300+/month in grants), low cost health care with a cost ceiling (US$130/year), affordable child care, social security net, local government owned and (well) managed infrastructure (power, water, fibre, roads, etc.) Our local government is funded through direct taxation. My local government tax rate is 30.2%. Not sure it tells the whole story though. VAT is not included in effective tax rate AFAIK (as defined in the Economist article). [1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/focus-4 http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/focus-4
- rdtsc 11y ago
  It's almost there. There are license plates readers everywhere, toll booths record your times and toll gates use. Also note, it doesn't have to be a "government" thing, where you'd expect some protection (at least on paper). It can be a completely private affair between the car makers and insurnace companies. In fact it is already almost there and it is called CLUE ( https://www.privacyrights.org/clue-and-you-how-insurers-size-you https://www.privacyrights.org/clue-and-you-how-insurers-size... ) -- a database used by insurance companies to evaluate indivicuals and record the claims they've made in the past. Feed info from these self-driving cars into them and you can't even claim any privacy or constitutional rights were violated.
  - pc86 11y ago
    On my state's main toll road (75 mph speed limit) it is common to be going 90 in the right lane and have most people zip past you like you're standing still. The design of the road only allows one or two places for speed enforcement every 10-15 miles or so. I've long wondered why the toll authority does not simply do the math on entry and exit and send citations to the top 5-10% of speeders. It's generate many thousands of dollars in revenue for sure.
- avn2109 11y ago
  Too late. Way too late. Bottlenecking transportation is the oldest law enforcement trick in the book. Why do you think they make you tell them all your info during registration, put identifying plates on your vehicle, compile databases of VIN numbers, get access to OnStar tracking computers, etc.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And I don't want to live in a society where it's a customary for people to take selfish advantage of AI drivers, or any other system for that matter. Maybe it's time to split up societies? Some people seem to value absolute freedom to do anything (and freedom from consequences). Others prefer having things actually work and be nice for everyone.
- shpx 11y ago
  Some lady did a hit and run, and her new Ford called the police [0]. There are surveillance cameras in the park by my house. I've given up, fighting this is like trying to stop a tsunami. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/07/florida-woman-arrested-hit-and-run-car-calls-police http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/07/florida-wo...
  - pc86 11y ago
    Fighting what? Her Ford "called the police" in that it automatically reported a collision had taken place. You make it sound like it sent a message saying "my owner committed a crime, go get her" which is not what happened. Are you saying the world would be better off if she had gotten away with a hit and run?
- sanoli 11y ago
  I want to live in a society where less and less people die by reckless driving - make that 'less and less people die by automobile, period'. As far as I can see, only technology will do that, education being the other means but a much less reliable one. If law enforcement only gets involved when a crime is comitted, that's fine by me.

jurassic 11y ago

I don't really see the problem with this. Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists, and the only reason they don't always do so now is because of some impatient humans at the wheel who prioritize their speed over the safety of other road users. Without road-raging human drivers behind the wheel, is the vehicle occupant going to care that they got to nap a few minutes longer on the way to work? Or got to read a few more pages of their novel? Edit to add: Also, I'm looking forward to autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
I think you underestimate how crazy and obnoxious people can be. Take San Francisco, as an example. There are people who are poor and disenfranchised, and mentally ill, who feel that it gives them some power to saunter out into traffic and make everybody stop. With an autonomous car, that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. Take New York as another example. For years I only walked in NYC and I figured that all drivers were maniacs. Then I drove though Manhattan once and I realized the actual dynamic. If a driver doesn't put on a credible appearance of being willing to run down pedestrians, the pedestrians will never stop crossing the street. How does an autonomous car fit into that? I think these cars are going to work brilliantly in very polite and orderly places like Zurich, where everybody takes their turn and neither pedestrians nor bicyclists nor drivers feel put upon by the system. I have no idea how they are going to work here in America where we dump our mentally ill on the streets, and then don't give them sidewalks and crosswalks or any sense of dignity. I have a feeling it's going to work quite poorly.
- sanswork 11y ago
  >that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. They can do that now unless you are suggesting running them over as a solution.
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    You can jump out of your car and either rationally debate with them the merits of allowing access to the right-of-way, or jump directly to violent threats. The problem with autonomous cars as they are being rationalized to the public is that half the time the car will have no occupants at all. There will be nobody in the car to leap out and shake their fist.

irln 11y ago

If AI driven cars achieve a superior safety record there won't be many human drivers...the insurance premiums will price most people out of the market. That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.

cpitman 11y ago
I don't see why the cost would be any higher than it is today. If anything, driver-less cars would have lower insurance premiums. So if you can afford/justify your insurance today, you could still afford it in the future. I could even see all insurance getting cheaper, since the risk of accidents for all cars should decrease as the mix of cars gets more and more automated.
- Fuzzwah 11y ago
  Insurance companies like to slice their customers up into buckets of similar risk and charge more or less accordingly. Insuring an automated car will be cheaper. Insuring a manually operated car will be more expensive.
  - cpitman 11y ago
    Sure, it will be more expensive than the automated car. But why would it be more expensive than today? Why would automated cars on the road make manually operated cars more risky than they are today?
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      At the moment, there is no other option other than human driving cars. Once automated cars are a realistic option, insurance companies can properly price insurance for human drivers much higher (comparatively speaking). A self-driving car should have almost 0 risk, meaning the vast majority of cars (if self driving) would carry no risk to the insurer.
      - 11y ago

pool 11y ago

I imagine there would be tickets given out for asshole behaviour.

zuminator 11y ago

To some extent this sounds similar to how people treat public transportation buses now. Drivers and pedestrians behave more recklessly, knowing that the bus operator will go through great lengths to avoid a collision. But you raise the interesting point that it might perversely be safer to make automated cars less safe. Make them just dangerous enough that people won't be deliberately stupid around them.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

For me the bigger question is WRT the ongoing quest to marginalize human beings. Once we automate everything, then what?

monochromatic 11y ago
> then what? Whatever we want.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Right. And, this is generally taken to mean that we--now freed of life's pesky minutiae (such as work), which is handled via automation--will all frolic in meadows, wearing fig leaves and pursuing our inner potential. We will subsist off of a basic income and life will simply be as intended, without the need for labor or physical movement for that matter. And, I wonder what it is in human nature or recent history that makes so many believe that this will be even remotely close to how things actually unfold. That property rights will somehow cease to exist or that those who control the various automata won't simply accrete more economic power unto themselves, relying on ever fewer humans with whom to share that power. Yet, somehow, they will share the spoils such that the masses of unnecessary humans may live comfortably without expending the slightest effort. It need not be a full-on sci-fi style dystopic future to be problematic. We are already seeing degrees of the problem. On our relentless quest to automate humans into obsolescence, seems that we should occasionally pause to consider the consequences in the context of what we know to be true of human nature and history.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Peace and prosperity, I hope.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  I think "hope" is the keyword there and, unfortunately, I don't think there's evidence to warrant much of it. See my reply to your sibling.
11y ago

lifeformed 11y ago

Maybe the AI cars will have automated systems that report to authorities reckless human drivers.

js2 11y ago

This was the plot of a recent episode of The Good Wife.

bayesianhorse 11y ago

The interaction of AI and manual cars will depend on the general discipline of the drivers. There are countries in the world where according to rumours the traffic rules are somewhat open to interpretation...

DanBC 11y ago

AI Cars are going to have a lot of cameras and always-on recording. Aggressive driving would risk being reported to law enforcement. > Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car. That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads.

pc86 11y ago
Jaywalking is a crime for a reason, because it's potentially deadly to the pedestrian. It seems to be much worse in small/mid-size cities (probably because of less overall traffic). I've had people literally jog into my lane then walk the remaining 4 feet to the sidewalk while I slow from 35 to 10 to avoid hitting them. I think if half the cars on the road are autonomous and will just stop no matter what you will not see the decrease in pedestrian injuries and deaths some are expecting.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Jaywalking is a crime for a reason ... in some parts of the world.
- beardicus 11y ago
  Jaywalking is a crime because automakers wanted it to be. It had more to do with increasing the speed and utility of cars than it did with pedestrian safety (nobody gives a shit, and nobody gets in trouble for killing pedestrians with automobiles) [1]. I hope autonomous cars can help re-enable the peaceful co-existence of multiple modes of transportation on our streets. [1]: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/...
GVIrish 11y ago
>> Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car. >That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads. The problem with that is the time period before AI cars are ubiquitous. In my area I've already seen pedestrians act far more carelessly now that the pedestrian right of way laws have been enhanced and there's been an uptick in pedestrian fatalities. Sometimes giving people the impression that something is safe makes them behave so much more recklessly than they would have originally.