6 ms·

This. Consider how currently-deployed active stability controls, traction control systems, or even ABS operate: by operating the brakes beyond the input the dri

This. Consider how currently-deployed active stability controls, traction control systems, or even ABS operate: by operating the brakes beyond the input the driver is directly providing. That said, dear Google, please don't take away my foot brake. I'd really rather not have the algorithm decide that the lives of the occupants of my vehicle are worth less than %{UPCOMING_SITUATION} and kill everyone without the occupants having control.

203993203993 11y ago
What the hell are you talking about? You are saying google cars are stupid enough to cause a crash but smart enough to weight the worth of people inside and outside the car and then decide which to save. How would a car even kill the occupants? Drive into a wall without braking? Why would it even do that? Our cars are designed to deform and absorb most of the energy from a crash, it's better to stay in your lane and brake as much as the car can handle and if it ends up being unavoidable then hit the car in front of you. Somehow even with all that sophistication everyone dies but a foot brake could solve all problems?
- ma2rten 11y ago
  He is just saying that it's comforting to have the idea that you can always stop the car.
- finance-geek 11y ago
  The car would not need to be "stupid" or "stupid enough" to cause a crash, sometimes a crash is unfortunately inevitable given the situation other cats put you into. And yes, some people sometimes have to make the difficult decision between hitting another smaller car, hitting a truck, and hitting a person. I suspect these days, most people react irrationally in split seconds. However, with self-driving cars, all the data would be available and a real decision could be made...but what would be the constraints and what would you maximize? that is the scary question.
- gambiting 11y ago
  Tyre blows, the car starts sweering to the left into the oncoming lane, the computer can either: 1) decide that a critical error has occurred and shut down 2) apply full brakes on the remaining wheels, sending the car into a spin and killing a group of pedestrians on the pavement. 3) let the car continue, smashing into a minivan with a family inside it. The minivan is also auto-controlled but has no time to change course 4) try steering further left, hitting the barriers/trees, possibly killing its own occupants. Now, situations 2-4 can be simulated before they happen with enough computational power. Therefore, the computer would have to take a conscious/programmed decision who to kill, and that is a huge deal morally, because at some point someone somewhere will have to write code that will literally be evaluating value of human life. And before you say that humans would do no better in this situation - that is true, but no one will judge you for a decision you took in the split second you had, you would do what felt right at the time. The computer is programmed a certain way and you can always sue saying that if it did X then person Y would still be alive - and if there's one thing that companies fear it's litigation.
  - Razengan 11y ago
    Well, obviously the car's own occupants should always hold the highest priority for that car. Otherwise it is a terrible terrible product if the code even contains the possibility that it could ever prioritize anything over the lives of its owners. In your scenario, smashing into another vehicle will be preferable to mowing down pedestrians; that vehicle's program just might be able to save itself, or the two vehicles might even communicate to minimize the damage to each other, and in any case a vehicle will most certainly absorb more of the impact than an exposed pedestrian could. People on foot, who have nothing to do with the traffic, should never have to deal with the vehicles and the consequences of their programs. Number 2 from your scenario should not even be an option to the program.
    - gambiting 11y ago
      While I agree with you, there still is a possibility of conflict in what you are saying. What if hitting a pedestrian is the only way to avoid killing occupants of the vehicle? On one hand, like you said - the vehicle should always prioritize its owners, but at the same time, it should have some overriding directive that says "never hit a pedestrian at all costs". One of those has to give - who decides which one?
bsder 11y ago
> I'd really rather not have the algorithm decide that the lives of the occupants of my vehicle are worth less than %{UPCOMING_SITUATION} and kill everyone without the occupants having control. No offense, but that statistics show that humans are actually terrible at emergency decision making. Just look at San Diego traffic when it rains. It's a disaster. Adding even a small amount of algorithmically controlled cars is going to be a huge win. The bigger issue is going to be traffic and road rage generated by cars actually obeying all the stupid traffic laws.
jameshart 11y ago
If the passenger seat of your car had a foot brake so the passenger could decide when to brake while you were driving, would that make your driving safer? Cars already ignore driver braking input when it would be dangerous - that's what ABS is, after all, selective releasing of the brakes on locked wheels. I can think of plenty of circumstances where a passenger just slamming on the brakes could put a self driving car in more danger. Still, no reason not to have a 'pull cord in case of emergency' type brake for passengers to use to signal the car to stop as soon as can be safely managed.

203993203993 11y ago

What the hell are you talking about? You are saying google cars are stupid enough to cause a crash but smart enough to weight the worth of people inside and outside the car and then decide which to save. How would a car even kill the occupants? Drive into a wall without braking? Why would it even do that? Our cars are designed to deform and absorb most of the energy from a crash, it's better to stay in your lane and brake as much as the car can handle and if it ends up being unavoidable then hit the car in front of you. Somehow even with all that sophistication everyone dies but a foot brake could solve all problems?

ma2rten 11y ago
He is just saying that it's comforting to have the idea that you can always stop the car.
finance-geek 11y ago
The car would not need to be "stupid" or "stupid enough" to cause a crash, sometimes a crash is unfortunately inevitable given the situation other cats put you into. And yes, some people sometimes have to make the difficult decision between hitting another smaller car, hitting a truck, and hitting a person. I suspect these days, most people react irrationally in split seconds. However, with self-driving cars, all the data would be available and a real decision could be made...but what would be the constraints and what would you maximize? that is the scary question.
gambiting 11y ago
Tyre blows, the car starts sweering to the left into the oncoming lane, the computer can either: 1) decide that a critical error has occurred and shut down 2) apply full brakes on the remaining wheels, sending the car into a spin and killing a group of pedestrians on the pavement. 3) let the car continue, smashing into a minivan with a family inside it. The minivan is also auto-controlled but has no time to change course 4) try steering further left, hitting the barriers/trees, possibly killing its own occupants. Now, situations 2-4 can be simulated before they happen with enough computational power. Therefore, the computer would have to take a conscious/programmed decision who to kill, and that is a huge deal morally, because at some point someone somewhere will have to write code that will literally be evaluating value of human life. And before you say that humans would do no better in this situation - that is true, but no one will judge you for a decision you took in the split second you had, you would do what felt right at the time. The computer is programmed a certain way and you can always sue saying that if it did X then person Y would still be alive - and if there's one thing that companies fear it's litigation.
- Razengan 11y ago
  Well, obviously the car's own occupants should always hold the highest priority for that car. Otherwise it is a terrible terrible product if the code even contains the possibility that it could ever prioritize anything over the lives of its owners. In your scenario, smashing into another vehicle will be preferable to mowing down pedestrians; that vehicle's program just might be able to save itself, or the two vehicles might even communicate to minimize the damage to each other, and in any case a vehicle will most certainly absorb more of the impact than an exposed pedestrian could. People on foot, who have nothing to do with the traffic, should never have to deal with the vehicles and the consequences of their programs. Number 2 from your scenario should not even be an option to the program.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    While I agree with you, there still is a possibility of conflict in what you are saying. What if hitting a pedestrian is the only way to avoid killing occupants of the vehicle? On one hand, like you said - the vehicle should always prioritize its owners, but at the same time, it should have some overriding directive that says "never hit a pedestrian at all costs". One of those has to give - who decides which one?

bsder 11y ago

> I'd really rather not have the algorithm decide that the lives of the occupants of my vehicle are worth less than %{UPCOMING_SITUATION} and kill everyone without the occupants having control. No offense, but that statistics show that humans are actually terrible at emergency decision making. Just look at San Diego traffic when it rains. It's a disaster. Adding even a small amount of algorithmically controlled cars is going to be a huge win. The bigger issue is going to be traffic and road rage generated by cars actually obeying all the stupid traffic laws.

jameshart 11y ago

If the passenger seat of your car had a foot brake so the passenger could decide when to brake while you were driving, would that make your driving safer? Cars already ignore driver braking input when it would be dangerous - that's what ABS is, after all, selective releasing of the brakes on locked wheels. I can think of plenty of circumstances where a passenger just slamming on the brakes could put a self driving car in more danger. Still, no reason not to have a 'pull cord in case of emergency' type brake for passengers to use to signal the car to stop as soon as can be safely managed.