4 ms·
I'll say it again, this "discussion" is just bike shedding. [0] As an example, not everyone can have an opinion on how much of a role deep learning should/will
by shpx 10y ago
I'll say it again, this "discussion" is just bike shedding. [0]
As an example, not everyone can have an opinion on how much of a role deep learning should/will play in a self driving car, of what types of deep learning models we should try, or how we should interface between neral nets and regular code.
But everyone and their mother can talk about trolley problems, it's a mind virus that's existed for 50 years. You tell me more about yourself than about self driving cars.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
- bradtemp 10y agoYes, this is the point of the article
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- EdHominem 10y agoIt's not only philosophical wankery, it's also technological nonsense. It's ridiculous to imagine a self-driving car that can determine that hitting a fat man on the sidewalk would slow the car just enough to avoid killing the girl scouts. If you acknowledge the impossibility of the exact knowledge these problems are framed with they become a lot less "interesting". Also, sorry for the spoilers, but there's only one correct answer - the car cares about the occupants first in a life and death situation. The car can be pretty sure that it contains humans, but it can't really tell if the suddenly appearing object in the road is a toddler (who the designers might want to prioritize) or a seagull. It's not like we all have IFF transmitters. Given that, unless you want me to be able to kill you by throwing a seagull onto the road in front of your car, it must prioritize the occupants.