4 ms·

The Uber self-driving cars have a human in the driver's seat that is able to take control of the vehicle. It's not clear whether the computer or the human was i

by jgacook 10y ago

The Uber self-driving cars have a human in the driver's seat that is able to take control of the vehicle. It's not clear whether the computer or the human was in control when the car blew the red light.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
Some variation of that comment has been oft-repeated on this thread and it's exactly what Uber wants. One of the main functions of that human is to accept blame (or at least obfuscate culpability) and absolve the tech in the event of an accident. There are a ton of scenarios wherein it would be virtually impossible for a human--especially one lulled into inaction and passivity for most of the ride--would be able to intervene quickly enough to avert an accident once it became apparent that the tech was failing.
- jodrellblank 10y ago
  And you're absolving the legally responsible human, so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving don't get to escape the blame if they crash because they couldn't respond quickly enough if the situation changes suddenly, regardless of 'tech failing'. If you have SatNav and it says 'drive down here' and you do, and it's a one-way street, you don't say "that's exactly what Garmin want, a human to absolve them when their tech fails". Because the driver is in the position of responsibility, the tech is not.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something, entreats you to confer upon it some degree of trust, then holds you responsible when it fails. Because lives can be lost as a result of such failures and the company's stance represents a cynical and cavalier regard for this fact. Because, they want the cachet (and the cash) without the responsibility. >Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving That analogy isn't even close to holding. In that case, you are understood to be in control of the vehicle. In fact, you are actively giving minor corrective inputs at all times. It's nowhere near the same as the car saying, "here, let me do that for you", but, you are supposed to sit at the ready, hands hovering slightly over the wheel and foot over the brake, ever scanning and ready to take over? That's asinine, and it's a flawed model. At a minimum, your reaction time will be slowed as you must first recognize that the car is not responding properly in, perhaps, a split second when it suddenly does something unexpected. Look, it's simple: the car needs to either be fully ready and safe, or it's not. This have-it-both-ways Tesla-invented PR spin that says "our tech is statistically safer, but it's your fault for not correcting it even if it does screw up" is a pernicious subterfuge and I personally don't like how it defines our relationship with technology.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      Car is not 100% safe even with human driver. If a tech makes less mistakes than a human, then the tech is better. It's your responsibility to chose what is better: you, the tech, or a taxi driver. IMHO, every self-driving car must be equipped with a black-box to capture all information in case of an accident and special commission for investigation, to make rules to follow, so self-driven cars will be safer for others, and that is all. Self-driven system manufacturer can be punished only if these rules are not followed, by suspending a license to manufacture self-driving systems. Currently, we have almost no such rules at all. IMHO, the first rule for self-driving cars, until they will be mature, must be better communication between computer and human: as driver, I want to see how computer sees road and obstacles, and planned actions, and other variants of these actions to pickup. I want computer to project computer map to wind-shield and be presented with tree buttons: big red «stop» button, left button, and right button, so I will be able to see road situation, computer understanding of that situation, and will be able to correct computer or make a full stop.
    - jodrellblank 10y ago
      Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something Are you suggesting that the 'something' it claims to be capable of doing is, explicitly, "driving 100% without human intervention"? because you seem to be pushing "it claims to be able to drive without human intervention and cannot", which would be misleading and probably grounds for lawsuits about fitness for purpose. but ... I don't think that's what it claims to be able to do. In that case, you are understood to be in control of the vehicle. In fact, you are actively giving minor corrective inputs at all times. It's nowhere near the same as the car saying, "here, let me do that for you", but, you are supposed to sit at the ready, hands hovering slightly over the wheel and foot over the brake, ever scanning and ready to take over? That's asinine, and it's a flawed model. You, as the human driver, are responsible for control of the vehicle. If you find the terms of some assistive device 'assinine' because you won't be able to be in control, then do not figuratively click 'I agree to the terms and conditions'. You, the responsible driver, would never believe a child telling you they were capable of driving safely, it would be dumb, you know it's not true - and you're not legally allowed to hand over responsibility for vehicle control to them anyway. Like you're not allowed to hand over responsibility to a piece of software, no matter how enticing or convincing the marketing blurb seems. And if you do hand over control to it, and then fail to take back control and an accident happens, you should be responsible. Look, it's simple: the car needs to either be fully ready and safe, or it's not. Look, it's black and white thinking which doesn't reflect reality. But if you want to force it to binary then it always casts false. The car is never 100% ready, you never hand over control, problem avoided, case closed. Saying "it has to be 100% ready, I don't believe it's 100% ready, but I'm still going to hand over control, even though I think what I'm doing is asinine because I can't respond quickly enough - and then it crashes which is totally not my fault because I knew I couldn't take over in time!" is have-cake-and-eat-it nonsense logic.

by jgacook 10y ago

unclebucknasty 10y ago

Some variation of that comment has been oft-repeated on this thread and it's exactly what Uber wants. One of the main functions of that human is to accept blame (or at least obfuscate culpability) and absolve the tech in the event of an accident. There are a ton of scenarios wherein it would be virtually impossible for a human--especially one lulled into inaction and passivity for most of the ride--would be able to intervene quickly enough to avert an accident once it became apparent that the tech was failing.

jodrellblank 10y ago
And you're absolving the legally responsible human, so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving don't get to escape the blame if they crash because they couldn't respond quickly enough if the situation changes suddenly, regardless of 'tech failing'. If you have SatNav and it says 'drive down here' and you do, and it's a one-way street, you don't say "that's exactly what Garmin want, a human to absolve them when their tech fails". Because the driver is in the position of responsibility, the tech is not.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something, entreats you to confer upon it some degree of trust, then holds you responsible when it fails. Because lives can be lost as a result of such failures and the company's stance represents a cynical and cavalier regard for this fact. Because, they want the cachet (and the cash) without the responsibility. >Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving That analogy isn't even close to holding. In that case, you are understood to be in control of the vehicle. In fact, you are actively giving minor corrective inputs at all times. It's nowhere near the same as the car saying, "here, let me do that for you", but, you are supposed to sit at the ready, hands hovering slightly over the wheel and foot over the brake, ever scanning and ready to take over? That's asinine, and it's a flawed model. At a minimum, your reaction time will be slowed as you must first recognize that the car is not responding properly in, perhaps, a split second when it suddenly does something unexpected. Look, it's simple: the car needs to either be fully ready and safe, or it's not. This have-it-both-ways Tesla-invented PR spin that says "our tech is statistically safer, but it's your fault for not correcting it even if it does screw up" is a pernicious subterfuge and I personally don't like how it defines our relationship with technology.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Car is not 100% safe even with human driver. If a tech makes less mistakes than a human, then the tech is better. It's your responsibility to chose what is better: you, the tech, or a taxi driver. IMHO, every self-driving car must be equipped with a black-box to capture all information in case of an accident and special commission for investigation, to make rules to follow, so self-driven cars will be safer for others, and that is all. Self-driven system manufacturer can be punished only if these rules are not followed, by suspending a license to manufacture self-driving systems. Currently, we have almost no such rules at all. IMHO, the first rule for self-driving cars, until they will be mature, must be better communication between computer and human: as driver, I want to see how computer sees road and obstacles, and planned actions, and other variants of these actions to pickup. I want computer to project computer map to wind-shield and be presented with tree buttons: big red «stop» button, left button, and right button, so I will be able to see road situation, computer understanding of that situation, and will be able to correct computer or make a full stop.
  - jodrellblank 10y ago
    Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something Are you suggesting that the 'something' it claims to be capable of doing is, explicitly, "driving 100% without human intervention"? because you seem to be pushing "it claims to be able to drive without human intervention and cannot", which would be misleading and probably grounds for lawsuits about fitness for purpose. but ... I don't think that's what it claims to be able to do. In that case, you are understood to be in control of the vehicle. In fact, you are actively giving minor corrective inputs at all times. It's nowhere near the same as the car saying, "here, let me do that for you", but, you are supposed to sit at the ready, hands hovering slightly over the wheel and foot over the brake, ever scanning and ready to take over? That's asinine, and it's a flawed model. You, as the human driver, are responsible for control of the vehicle. If you find the terms of some assistive device 'assinine' because you won't be able to be in control, then do not figuratively click 'I agree to the terms and conditions'. You, the responsible driver, would never believe a child telling you they were capable of driving safely, it would be dumb, you know it's not true - and you're not legally allowed to hand over responsibility for vehicle control to them anyway. Like you're not allowed to hand over responsibility to a piece of software, no matter how enticing or convincing the marketing blurb seems. And if you do hand over control to it, and then fail to take back control and an accident happens, you should be responsible. Look, it's simple: the car needs to either be fully ready and safe, or it's not. Look, it's black and white thinking which doesn't reflect reality. But if you want to force it to binary then it always casts false. The car is never 100% ready, you never hand over control, problem avoided, case closed. Saying "it has to be 100% ready, I don't believe it's 100% ready, but I'm still going to hand over control, even though I think what I'm doing is asinine because I can't respond quickly enough - and then it crashes which is totally not my fault because I knew I couldn't take over in time!" is have-cake-and-eat-it nonsense logic.