4 ms·

Not sure I follow, how would these scenarios be any different if a human was making the decision? Some humans will act with self interest, some with a utilitari

by spydum 11y ago

Not sure I follow, how would these scenarios be any different if a human was making the decision? Some humans will act with self interest, some with a utilitarianism, and some just simply will freeze. I'm not so sure it would make much a difference how the car chooses. So, philosophical question aside, the concern for autonomous vehicle fleets having backdoor and being abused is more concerning..

bnj 11y ago
Not sure you got beyond the headline. Doctorow rejects the philosophical question; any car that can be programmed to kill it's driver, a driver can reprogram.
- spydum 11y ago
  Which makes the point: it is indistinguishable from what happens now..
TeMPOraL 11y ago
The only difference it makes is that a properly programmed car is guaranteed to make a near-optimal decision. I can't imagine a situation where human driver could react better than an autonomous car when facing an imminent collision. The question mostly boils down to whether the car should be optimizing locally or globally - whether it should care only about the interests of the driver, or it should strive for an optimal outcome for all parties involved. The latter doesn't sit well with many people.
- sliken 11y ago
  I think the main problem is that people use common sense and decide when to break the law and do so extremely often. People regularly speed, cross double yellow lines, pass in the right hand lane, etc. So we now have to decide if we should change our behaviors when computers start following the laws, or if we should change the laws.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yes, and the core of this problem is that "common sense" is exactly what kills people. The laws are what they are to make things orderly, but as we know, everyone thinks they're above average and therefore can ignore the rules at their discretion. We're slowly learning, industry after industry, that achieving reliability and safety in complex environments means following the rules without cutting corners. Airlines have embraced this and achieved safety. Construction workers too relinquished a great deal of autonomy, and thus skyscrapers can be built quick and yet they don't fall down. Surgeons are embracing it too, and surgeries are getting safer. But it's not something that sits well with people. It feels like losing something. And people need to learn to trust the system. Anyway, I hope we won't be teaching self-driving cars to ignore the laws. They're our best hope at actually forcing some reason into human drivers. That is, for the short while before they get replaced altogether.

by spydum 11y ago

bnj 11y ago

Not sure you got beyond the headline. Doctorow rejects the philosophical question; any car that can be programmed to kill it's driver, a driver can reprogram.

spydum 11y ago
Which makes the point: it is indistinguishable from what happens now..

TeMPOraL 11y ago

The only difference it makes is that a properly programmed car is guaranteed to make a near-optimal decision. I can't imagine a situation where human driver could react better than an autonomous car when facing an imminent collision. The question mostly boils down to whether the car should be optimizing locally or globally - whether it should care only about the interests of the driver, or it should strive for an optimal outcome for all parties involved. The latter doesn't sit well with many people.

sliken 11y ago
I think the main problem is that people use common sense and decide when to break the law and do so extremely often. People regularly speed, cross double yellow lines, pass in the right hand lane, etc. So we now have to decide if we should change our behaviors when computers start following the laws, or if we should change the laws.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Yes, and the core of this problem is that "common sense" is exactly what kills people. The laws are what they are to make things orderly, but as we know, everyone thinks they're above average and therefore can ignore the rules at their discretion. We're slowly learning, industry after industry, that achieving reliability and safety in complex environments means following the rules without cutting corners. Airlines have embraced this and achieved safety. Construction workers too relinquished a great deal of autonomy, and thus skyscrapers can be built quick and yet they don't fall down. Surgeons are embracing it too, and surgeries are getting safer. But it's not something that sits well with people. It feels like losing something. And people need to learn to trust the system. Anyway, I hope we won't be teaching self-driving cars to ignore the laws. They're our best hope at actually forcing some reason into human drivers. That is, for the short while before they get replaced altogether.