6 ms·
Is any Californian citizen here that is worried that the IT companies will move fast and break things? Are the laws in place to determine who is guilty and who
by simion314 9y ago
Is any Californian citizen here that is worried that the IT companies will move fast and break things?
Are the laws in place to determine who is guilty and who will pay the damages in case of accidents?
As a developer I am always worried when I have to put some big update live, I think I personally could not handle the responsibility of doing such an update for self driving cars.
- awestroke 9y agoThe insurance companies will pay the damages.
- retrogradeorbit 9y agoWill they also resurrect the dead?
- briga 9y agoGive it about 30 years and maybe.
- awestroke 9y agoAre you implying that the scenario where someone dies is strictly better if there was a human behind the wheel? Do you require a human to punish if an accident happens?
- Tyrek 9y agoNo, the implication is that there is that there are an enormous amount of edge cases that a human would appropriately respond to (i.e. no death) that the "A.I." cannot.
- Lewton 9y agoonly really relevant if the robot cars end up killing more humans per mile driven than humans already do
- croon 9y agoThe rational part of my brain agrees, the parent in me does not, and I'm not sure either part is wrong. Yes, I'm aware that a computer will statistically be a lot less accident prone than me (even though I'm completely accident free knock on wood). But even so, if my child died in an AI edge case where I know without a doubt I would have avoided the accident, it would matter a hell of a lot to me. I'm not sure if it's right, but we will expect a lot more of AI drivers (and other) than we do of ourselves. Failing to see a stopped service truck in the middle of the highway isn't something a human does. And any death resulting from that will be highly scrutinized.
- awestroke 9y agoIn a few years, I think this is a more likely concern: "If my child died in a situation where I know without a doubt an AI would have avoided the accident, it would matter a hell of a lot to me."
- olivermarks 9y ago...but near term "If my child died in a situation where I know without a doubt an AI caused the accident, it would matter a hell of a lot to me." There are going to be a lot of lawsuits that will sort out the legal frameworks after the first wave of failures by automated conveyances....
- croon 9y agoAbsolutely, you're right. But as a singular entity, I'm a human, and an AI is "other". I know I perform better in 2 cases, and AI statistically perform better in 100 others, but I believe I'm more special than statistics in those 100 other cases, so I only care about the cases where I could have made a saving difference. I guess I'm suggesting there's bound to be a (n irrational) paradox where everyone wants other drivers to be replaced by AI, so they themselves can drive safely and avoid the edge case accidents.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
- yathern 9y agoThe corollary of course, is that there is an even larger amount of not-so-edge cases that a human would inappropriately respond to, that AI wont. EG: Driving while very tired or intoxicated, or in a rage.
- simion314 9y agoI am considering the case where a company would refuse to upgrade the sensors(or the software) if this would costs say 25% more then paying for the killed people.
- aleksei 9y agoI think the point is that the car would not have been in traffic otherwise, thus avoiding any death. Though it does lead to interesting questions about whether the deaths that may occur now are acceptable if traffic deaths are reduced in the long term as a result of the testing.
- diggernet 9y agoI am not so concerned with guilt and liability as I am that this is TESTING. As in, not sure yet whether it's easy for production. Looking for bugs. In a risky environment, among the general public. Normally, beta testers are volunteers, who know what they are getting into, and nobody else is involved. This is playing with lives. Every pedestrian the car approaches is an unwilling bug checker.
- rymate1234 9y agoHow is this any worse than having learner drivers on the road?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoThe companies involved haven't even shown that their systems are as safe as learner drivers.
- lukev 9y agoLearner drivers have an instructor in the passenger seat. Who has a set of auxiliary brakes.
- rymate1234 9y agoOur learning AIs will have an instructor, just remotely > the DMV will require that those testing autonomous cars without a driver present have a dedicated communications channel that ties the car to a remote operator, who can take over if needed.
- 3pt14159 9y agoI've been concerned about the "move fast and actually break things" aspect of autonomous devices for the past year and a half because I view malcode pushed from the update server as a mass damage event / equivalent to weapons of mass destruction if intentional. I'm not sure how it is now, but according to someone talking to me privately at one company early programmers were SSHing into fucking moving cars with passengers and running commands on them and had it not been for the layers of redundant code would have crashed the car. We need to regulate autonomous devices and we need to do it before there are billions of them. We need a public effort to get policy makers open source outlines of regulations; otherwise the car companies are going to be writing them and they aren't going to write in protections against black swan events and we're going to get the autonomous equivalent of a BP oil spill or worse one day.
- simion314 9y agoI think if there is a large enough penalty for crashes then the car companies would take quality more serious, if the costs are too low I can see them pushing updates with just a few hours of testing, There is also the issue with adversarial inputs to the AI, you could have someone put stickers everywhere that would crash the AI .
- MBCook 9y agoThe penalty only works after someone has been caught at it once (it seems clear to me these companies aren’t proactive about his stuff). That ‘once’ could be One (or many) very bad accidents. ‘Company X fines $750m for incident where they caused 250 car crashes and 478 deaths’ is not a headline I want to see.
- komali2 9y ago>[In Texas] in 2016, 987 people lost their lives to DUI incidents https://www.rightstep.com/resources/texas-addiction-information/texas-drunk-driving-statistics/ https://www.rightstep.com/resources/texas-addiction-informat... I'll take that headline.
- 9y ago
- DINKDINK 9y ago>Californian citizen here that is worried that the IT companies will move fast and break things? I'll only have faith in driverless-car technology when, the companies who make the cars, have their own families drive by the cars and walk around in mock-city testing facility for an extended period of time. SITG
- fudged71 9y agoI'm not californian but the crash test culture is terrifying. Companies are currently driving driverless cars on public roads with safety features turned off. They have not received any consequences even after a highly publicized video of a near accident. That terrifies me.
- tim333 9y agoTesla has already moved fast and crashed into stationary fire trucks but its a drop in the ocean compared to human caused accidents. https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/
- greglindahl 9y agoGood thing it wasn't a Level 3 system -- it was a Level 2, human-must-stay-in-the-loop system.