6 ms·

Will they also resurrect the dead?

briga 9y ago
Give it about 30 years and maybe.
awestroke 9y ago
Are 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 ago
  No, 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 ago
    only really relevant if the robot cars end up killing more humans per mile driven than humans already do
    - croon 9y ago
      The 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 ago
        In 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 ago
        Absolutely, 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
        I’m looking forward to having a self driving car. You value control so much that having amortized years of your life back isn’t worth it? How many hours of your life have you and will you spend driving when you could have been surfing the web, talking to loved ones, reading, eating or literally anything else?
        simion314 9y ago
        The problem is not self driving cars but the unsafe driving cars, you know the move fast and brake things, self driving AI is not ready yet, when it will be ready and safe I will accept them, I wish we get safety at the level that NASA or airplanes not the safety we have in web apps and regular software.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - salvar 9y ago
      On a larger utilitarian scale sure, but once a driverless car kills a person many legal and ethical issues will arise that you can't just brush off with that argument.
    - simion314 9y ago
      This would mean that the car companies won't invest in improving because they have less accidents then some number, maybe they can put some money into lobby so that number is the largest number possible obtained with some statistic gymnastics. Than number of car crashes is not the same in all countries,states or regions so I would hate that a safe city will be less safe in the future because of this.
      - Lewton 9y ago
        > This would mean that the car companies won't invest in improving because they have less accidents then some number, maybe they can put some money into lobby so that number is the largest number possible obtained with some statistic gymnastics. I really really doubt that! The car manufacturers will fight tooth and nail to be seen as the company providing the safest cars
        jetpacktuxedo 9y ago
        Them competing to be the safest means that none of them are as safe as they could be working together, though. If every company has their own secret suite of test cases then different companies can specialize in different aspects of safety, and different AIs will be tuned to watch for different conditions. Imagine if instead of that they all worked together to define a rigorous test suite. Then they would all be striving to excel against all of the tests that the best of them could come up with. Wouldn't that result in more rigorous testing than any individual company would do? Especially if the results of all of the tests were public? To go another step further, imagine an open carAI platform that had the aforementioned test suite and a full simulation platform for testing changes, with different car manufacturers represented on a committee that oversees the carAI platform. Separate the smarts from the base car a bit and have some sort of abstraction layer between the smart bits and the car bits. As long as the abstraction layer is configured properly then different AIs would be interchangeable/upgradeable on the same base hardware. All car companies (and tech companies, and interested individuals) could collaborate on building the best, most efficient, safest car AI possible. People on older hardware would get all the same safety improvements as people on newer hardware (though hardware improvements would obviously improve things like sensor quality and quantity and the like), there wouldn't be fragmentation between ai ecosystems with poorer people trapped on older releases with lower safety standards while the rich get the latests and greatest and safest cars, etc. Obviously competition is better than nothing, but is it really better than an open, collaborative alternative?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Well, since this is for testing purposes, one would assume that we don't know these statistics yet.
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        "Tested on people," quite literally.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      Depends if some cute blonde WASP niece of an influential politician Is killed by a self driving car I could see a media and legal backlash.
    - legolas2412 9y ago
      I've never understood this argument. Humans cause accidents in certain cases, mostly by carelessness. AI causes accidents in certain cases, mostly by its stupidity. These are different cases they fail in. You shouldn't be comparing a driverless AI to a unaided human, but a human aided by the driverless AI acting as a driving aid (you know, like automatic emergency breaking). this way you get the best of both worlds, the attentiveness of the AI to dumb things, and the smartness of humans. I am sure a driverless AI if good enough won't beat a human aided by the same driverless AI acting as a "autopilot/supervisor"
  - yathern 9y ago
    The 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  I 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.

Give it about 30 years and maybe.

Are 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 ago
No, 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 ago
  only really relevant if the robot cars end up killing more humans per mile driven than humans already do
  - croon 9y ago
    The 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 ago
      In 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 ago
        Absolutely, 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
        I’m looking forward to having a self driving car. You value control so much that having amortized years of your life back isn’t worth it? How many hours of your life have you and will you spend driving when you could have been surfing the web, talking to loved ones, reading, eating or literally anything else?
        simion314 9y ago
        The problem is not self driving cars but the unsafe driving cars, you know the move fast and brake things, self driving AI is not ready yet, when it will be ready and safe I will accept them, I wish we get safety at the level that NASA or airplanes not the safety we have in web apps and regular software.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - salvar 9y ago
    On a larger utilitarian scale sure, but once a driverless car kills a person many legal and ethical issues will arise that you can't just brush off with that argument.
  - simion314 9y ago
    This would mean that the car companies won't invest in improving because they have less accidents then some number, maybe they can put some money into lobby so that number is the largest number possible obtained with some statistic gymnastics. Than number of car crashes is not the same in all countries,states or regions so I would hate that a safe city will be less safe in the future because of this.
    - Lewton 9y ago
      > This would mean that the car companies won't invest in improving because they have less accidents then some number, maybe they can put some money into lobby so that number is the largest number possible obtained with some statistic gymnastics. I really really doubt that! The car manufacturers will fight tooth and nail to be seen as the company providing the safest cars
      - jetpacktuxedo 9y ago
        Them competing to be the safest means that none of them are as safe as they could be working together, though. If every company has their own secret suite of test cases then different companies can specialize in different aspects of safety, and different AIs will be tuned to watch for different conditions. Imagine if instead of that they all worked together to define a rigorous test suite. Then they would all be striving to excel against all of the tests that the best of them could come up with. Wouldn't that result in more rigorous testing than any individual company would do? Especially if the results of all of the tests were public? To go another step further, imagine an open carAI platform that had the aforementioned test suite and a full simulation platform for testing changes, with different car manufacturers represented on a committee that oversees the carAI platform. Separate the smarts from the base car a bit and have some sort of abstraction layer between the smart bits and the car bits. As long as the abstraction layer is configured properly then different AIs would be interchangeable/upgradeable on the same base hardware. All car companies (and tech companies, and interested individuals) could collaborate on building the best, most efficient, safest car AI possible. People on older hardware would get all the same safety improvements as people on newer hardware (though hardware improvements would obviously improve things like sensor quality and quantity and the like), there wouldn't be fragmentation between ai ecosystems with poorer people trapped on older releases with lower safety standards while the rich get the latests and greatest and safest cars, etc. Obviously competition is better than nothing, but is it really better than an open, collaborative alternative?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Well, since this is for testing purposes, one would assume that we don't know these statistics yet.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      "Tested on people," quite literally.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Depends if some cute blonde WASP niece of an influential politician Is killed by a self driving car I could see a media and legal backlash.
  - legolas2412 9y ago
    I've never understood this argument. Humans cause accidents in certain cases, mostly by carelessness. AI causes accidents in certain cases, mostly by its stupidity. These are different cases they fail in. You shouldn't be comparing a driverless AI to a unaided human, but a human aided by the driverless AI acting as a driving aid (you know, like automatic emergency breaking). this way you get the best of both worlds, the attentiveness of the AI to dumb things, and the smartness of humans. I am sure a driverless AI if good enough won't beat a human aided by the same driverless AI acting as a "autopilot/supervisor"
- yathern 9y ago
  The 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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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.