5 ms·

You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? Worse, when the algorithm does kill someone, who is responsible? Edit: Instead of just downvoting and

You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? Worse, when the algorithm does kill someone, who is responsible? Edit: Instead of just downvoting and moving on, why not actually formulate a response? Is there anything more empty than disagreement without the capacity to argue your case?

golfer 9y ago
This is currently being tested in court. Tesla's autopilot has resulted in fatalities.
- kelnos 9y ago
  That's different, though. Autopilot doesn't absolve the driver of the car from responsibility to be alert and take control when necessary, so the argument can be made that the responsibility is shared, or even rests on the human driver, depending on the circumstances. But a level 5 system will theoretically not even have a driver, and might not allow passengers to control the vehicle at all aside from giving it a destination. I think that becomes easier, though: in the case where no human in the car has control over what the car does, it's obviously the manufacturer's fault when something goes awry. Though if doing something like rapidly and repeatedly changing the car's destination and intentionally "confusing" it leads to a crash, that might shift blame to one of the passengers, which would be unusual.
Jedd 9y ago
Won't accept which - that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable, or that the ratio will be 10:1 (or better) in favour of computer-driven cars in terms of fatalities? I'd agree that if we aren't seeing better fatality numbers, people won't accept it -- but there's little to suggest that humans are a difficult target to beat. Especially in the US, where car-related fatalities are so numerous and much of the research and trials are being done. Working out accountability for fatalities is already a hugely complicated process, involving an unhealthy number of law enforcement and legal personnel. The problem of identifying responsible party for a - as you put it - failed algorithm doesn't seem intractable, and certainly isn't a show-stopper. Haven't voted either way on this thread, but I suspect your re-hashing of regular topics already resolved is the problem.
- kelnos 9y ago
  Not the OP, but: I don't believe people will accept that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable. People have this weird psychological effect around control. They will accept higher failure rates if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that they have control over a situation. Or rather, they will believe that they can beat the statistics at least for themselves, as long as they believe they have control over the situation, and achieve a lower failure rate then the driverless car. In other words, "the higher failure rate might apply to the average person, but I'm above average". It's related to faulty risk assessment: it's much more likely that you'll get in a car and die than it is that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, but most people don't even think of getting into a car as all that risky, and yet we start drawn-out, unwinnable wars because people are afraid of terrorism. People believe that they personally won't die in a car crash because they have control of the situation and that they're a good driver, but they have no control over when or where a terrorist attack will take place, so it's somehow a worse threat.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Well, half of people are above-average though. Maybe the people who you talk to are just all above-average.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Turing_Machine 9y ago
> You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? That's why we have courts (and insurance). Conventional vehicles kill people all the time, sometimes through provable manufacturer negligence. But we still have them.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It’s funny, you failed to mention the group with the real power there... politicians, specifically, Congress.

golfer 9y ago

This is currently being tested in court. Tesla's autopilot has resulted in fatalities.

kelnos 9y ago
That's different, though. Autopilot doesn't absolve the driver of the car from responsibility to be alert and take control when necessary, so the argument can be made that the responsibility is shared, or even rests on the human driver, depending on the circumstances. But a level 5 system will theoretically not even have a driver, and might not allow passengers to control the vehicle at all aside from giving it a destination. I think that becomes easier, though: in the case where no human in the car has control over what the car does, it's obviously the manufacturer's fault when something goes awry. Though if doing something like rapidly and repeatedly changing the car's destination and intentionally "confusing" it leads to a crash, that might shift blame to one of the passengers, which would be unusual.

Jedd 9y ago

Won't accept which - that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable, or that the ratio will be 10:1 (or better) in favour of computer-driven cars in terms of fatalities? I'd agree that if we aren't seeing better fatality numbers, people won't accept it -- but there's little to suggest that humans are a difficult target to beat. Especially in the US, where car-related fatalities are so numerous and much of the research and trials are being done. Working out accountability for fatalities is already a hugely complicated process, involving an unhealthy number of law enforcement and legal personnel. The problem of identifying responsible party for a - as you put it - failed algorithm doesn't seem intractable, and certainly isn't a show-stopper. Haven't voted either way on this thread, but I suspect your re-hashing of regular topics already resolved is the problem.

kelnos 9y ago
Not the OP, but: I don't believe people will accept that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable. People have this weird psychological effect around control. They will accept higher failure rates if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that they have control over a situation. Or rather, they will believe that they can beat the statistics at least for themselves, as long as they believe they have control over the situation, and achieve a lower failure rate then the driverless car. In other words, "the higher failure rate might apply to the average person, but I'm above average". It's related to faulty risk assessment: it's much more likely that you'll get in a car and die than it is that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, but most people don't even think of getting into a car as all that risky, and yet we start drawn-out, unwinnable wars because people are afraid of terrorism. People believe that they personally won't die in a car crash because they have control of the situation and that they're a good driver, but they have no control over when or where a terrorist attack will take place, so it's somehow a worse threat.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Well, half of people are above-average though. Maybe the people who you talk to are just all above-average.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Turing_Machine 9y ago

> You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? That's why we have courts (and insurance). Conventional vehicles kill people all the time, sometimes through provable manufacturer negligence. But we still have them.

QAPereo 9y ago
It’s funny, you failed to mention the group with the real power there... politicians, specifically, Congress.