7 ms·

There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it w

There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorists, or sharks.

portofcall 9y ago
Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Keep in mind that some version of “killled by robots” has been in the zeitgeist of fear for decades now. In that sense, “sharks amd terrorists” might not be a bad comparison. It will not take much to ruin a good thing (automation) with typically scummy practices. The important thing to remember is that automation doesn’t require the likes of Uber playing fast and loose with it to become a reality.
- ams6110 9y ago
  > Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Agree. And I'd like to see an approach similar to an NTSB investigation of an air crash. Not to place blame, but to identify root causes and mitigate the chance that they recur. Air travel is exceptionally safe. Has been for many decades. Yet we still investigate any air crash because any crash means something went wrong, perhaps something that can be corrected. Self driving cars need to be treated the same way, at least for now, and until well after they have demonstrated themselves to be safer than human drivers.
  - portofcall 9y ago
    This is the way to go, and it would help (I think) to ease the calls I’ve seen around for holding individual devs responsible. The point is not to collect scalps, but prevent tragedy and malfeasance. Holding companies responsible, sure, but some random programmer who missed a bug being the scapegoat seems like a way to ensure companies avoid responsibility by foisting it off on a low totem member; thst can’t be allowed to happen with lives on the line. Like an aircraft, self driving car software is never going to be the work of a single Dev. The NTSB isn’t perfect, but as these things go, very admirable. IIRC the NTSB is investigating this case too.
  - Lunatic666 9y ago
    Responsible and ethical are usually not words which are used together with Uber, but in this case it seems like it was simply an accident. Computers cannot beat Physics, if the woman suddenly stepped in front of a car which is unable to brake, it’s a tragic accident. The idea of the investigations compared to air-travel is pretty good and also much easier to execute given they record everything on camera.
- divbit 9y ago
  With the level of tech commonly posted on this website (and in general), there seem to be many suprising dangers that the average lurker is not going to know about that the experienced developer / whatever will know about. It seems better to seek out and point out (if non-obvious): 'be careful about x,y,z' rather than hide such warnings in obscure blog posts / hope people will understand some kind of implicit message in whatever (especially since some times evidence can be conflicting). A good example of this is the BIS export warning for crypto (assuming in the US), I've talked in the past to several 'experienced' blockchain people who had no idea about this, but if you browse around on enough crypto github pages you can eventually find it.
  - divbit 9y ago
    This is commonly called 'attempting to saving someones butt with a reasonable explanation, rather than trying to make a quick buck / whatever to their detriment.'
  - portofcall 9y ago
    Did you reply to the correct post? This seems unconnected to the topic at hand in the extreme, but maybe I’m missing something.
    - divbit 9y ago
      I was specifically responding to your comment "Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must" and not responding to the topic of Uber or specifically self-driving cars.
- dzhiurgis 9y ago
  How is Uber's experiment different than any other 20 companies working on same thing?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
morogop 9y ago
Yes. And on HN the first article will get artificially removed from the front page by the owners of the site, and the second article will get artifically boosted onto it. Also, it'll be a long-ass time before Uber's half-assed bullshit will be as safe as a human driver. Only deeply fucking stupid people trust Uber on this one.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
More like cue them into how dangerous walking out into traffic is. Cars don't stop on a dime. Everyone knows that. If there's ok visibility there's no excuse for getting hit by one that isn't going absurdly fast (assuming you don't use a circular definition for "absurdly fast") Sure, the car isn't supposed hit the pedestrian but the pedestrian also has an equal obligation not to just dart out into the road. And before you ask, I don't drive to work.
- noobermin 9y ago
  Agree with part of it but no, pedestrians do not have an equal obligation. With power should come responsibility. In America, we seem to do the opposite, disassociate responsibility with those in power and blame victims.
  - taneq 9y ago
    With power should come responsibility, sure, but "power" means "ability to affect the situation", not "joules per second." In the scenario of a pedestrian suddenly running out in front of a car which is driving at the speed limit, the pedestrian has far more power to affect the outcome (by choosing not to run into the path of the car) than the driver (who could not reasonably predict the pedestrian would behave in this manner).
    - to3m 9y ago
      Right, but since the driver has seen there's somebody on foot on the pavement, how come they haven't slowed down already? Perhaps the person could trip and fall into the road. Perhaps the person could have a fit and fall into the road. Perhaps the person is just crazy and is contemplating leaping into the road. Perhaps the person is drunk, hasn't seen you, and just fancies crossing the road there and then. It really doesn't matter. These are not capital offences. What if that person were your son, daughter, wife, husband, parent, or whatever? Would you be so blasé over their losing their life, and all because somebody couldn't even be bothered to just move their foot a bit and press a pedal?
    - 9y ago
akira2501 9y ago
> Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. Until you consider the _billions_ of miles that cars in the US drive every month. Cars are exceptionally safe, and they're getting better every year.. because we keep driving _more_ miles year after year, yet fatalities continue to drop. Also, how do you interpret facts like: California has 30% more people living in it than Texas, yet TX has a _greater_ number of roadway fatalities than CA? > they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary The problem is: you absolutely cannot view vehicles as a _single_ risk factor. Thus, any comparison between human drivers and AI drivers on these terms is flawed from the outset.
- caconym_ 9y ago
  Cars are a leading cause of death in the US, especially among young people. That's a fact worth taking notice of, regardless of how many miles are driven or whatever else. Yes, it's great that fatalaties are trending downwards.
  - petre 9y ago
    So cap the power, weight and speed of cars young people are allowed to drive. In the US you can only vote at 21, but you can join the army and kill people if you're 18 and in most states drive powerful cars at 16 (although subject to some conditions such as a curfew and limits on the number of underage passengers present in the vehicle). In most European countries one can only drive heavy quadricycles (<=450 kg curb weight, <=15kW, <=45 km/h by construction) at 16 years of age. Same for autonomous vehicles: until the NTSB or whatever federal or state agency is responsible decides which tech is mature enough and issues licenses for a given AV system. A person has to have a driver's license, however AV systems do not. Why not certify which of them are able to operate heavier/more powerful/faster vehicles without human intervention (meaning they'd slow down to a stop when the driver would take his/her hands off the wheel).
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Cars are not anything close to exceptionally safe. Indeed, they are the exact opposite: They are the most dangeorus thing that most people encounter on a daily basis. There are many age and other cohorts of the population for which the leading cause of death is vehicles. And compare against commercial aviation, which has a per-mile death rate three orders of magnitude less than driving.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

portofcall 9y ago

Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Keep in mind that some version of “killled by robots” has been in the zeitgeist of fear for decades now. In that sense, “sharks amd terrorists” might not be a bad comparison. It will not take much to ruin a good thing (automation) with typically scummy practices. The important thing to remember is that automation doesn’t require the likes of Uber playing fast and loose with it to become a reality.

ams6110 9y ago
> Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Agree. And I'd like to see an approach similar to an NTSB investigation of an air crash. Not to place blame, but to identify root causes and mitigate the chance that they recur. Air travel is exceptionally safe. Has been for many decades. Yet we still investigate any air crash because any crash means something went wrong, perhaps something that can be corrected. Self driving cars need to be treated the same way, at least for now, and until well after they have demonstrated themselves to be safer than human drivers.
- portofcall 9y ago
  This is the way to go, and it would help (I think) to ease the calls I’ve seen around for holding individual devs responsible. The point is not to collect scalps, but prevent tragedy and malfeasance. Holding companies responsible, sure, but some random programmer who missed a bug being the scapegoat seems like a way to ensure companies avoid responsibility by foisting it off on a low totem member; thst can’t be allowed to happen with lives on the line. Like an aircraft, self driving car software is never going to be the work of a single Dev. The NTSB isn’t perfect, but as these things go, very admirable. IIRC the NTSB is investigating this case too.
- Lunatic666 9y ago
  Responsible and ethical are usually not words which are used together with Uber, but in this case it seems like it was simply an accident. Computers cannot beat Physics, if the woman suddenly stepped in front of a car which is unable to brake, it’s a tragic accident. The idea of the investigations compared to air-travel is pretty good and also much easier to execute given they record everything on camera.
divbit 9y ago
With the level of tech commonly posted on this website (and in general), there seem to be many suprising dangers that the average lurker is not going to know about that the experienced developer / whatever will know about. It seems better to seek out and point out (if non-obvious): 'be careful about x,y,z' rather than hide such warnings in obscure blog posts / hope people will understand some kind of implicit message in whatever (especially since some times evidence can be conflicting). A good example of this is the BIS export warning for crypto (assuming in the US), I've talked in the past to several 'experienced' blockchain people who had no idea about this, but if you browse around on enough crypto github pages you can eventually find it.
- divbit 9y ago
  This is commonly called 'attempting to saving someones butt with a reasonable explanation, rather than trying to make a quick buck / whatever to their detriment.'
- portofcall 9y ago
  Did you reply to the correct post? This seems unconnected to the topic at hand in the extreme, but maybe I’m missing something.
  - divbit 9y ago
    I was specifically responding to your comment "Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must" and not responding to the topic of Uber or specifically self-driving cars.
dzhiurgis 9y ago
How is Uber's experiment different than any other 20 companies working on same thing?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

morogop 9y ago

Yes. And on HN the first article will get artificially removed from the front page by the owners of the site, and the second article will get artifically boosted onto it. Also, it'll be a long-ass time before Uber's half-assed bullshit will be as safe as a human driver. Only deeply fucking stupid people trust Uber on this one.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

More like cue them into how dangerous walking out into traffic is. Cars don't stop on a dime. Everyone knows that. If there's ok visibility there's no excuse for getting hit by one that isn't going absurdly fast (assuming you don't use a circular definition for "absurdly fast") Sure, the car isn't supposed hit the pedestrian but the pedestrian also has an equal obligation not to just dart out into the road. And before you ask, I don't drive to work.

noobermin 9y ago
Agree with part of it but no, pedestrians do not have an equal obligation. With power should come responsibility. In America, we seem to do the opposite, disassociate responsibility with those in power and blame victims.
- taneq 9y ago
  With power should come responsibility, sure, but "power" means "ability to affect the situation", not "joules per second." In the scenario of a pedestrian suddenly running out in front of a car which is driving at the speed limit, the pedestrian has far more power to affect the outcome (by choosing not to run into the path of the car) than the driver (who could not reasonably predict the pedestrian would behave in this manner).
  - to3m 9y ago
    Right, but since the driver has seen there's somebody on foot on the pavement, how come they haven't slowed down already? Perhaps the person could trip and fall into the road. Perhaps the person could have a fit and fall into the road. Perhaps the person is just crazy and is contemplating leaping into the road. Perhaps the person is drunk, hasn't seen you, and just fancies crossing the road there and then. It really doesn't matter. These are not capital offences. What if that person were your son, daughter, wife, husband, parent, or whatever? Would you be so blasé over their losing their life, and all because somebody couldn't even be bothered to just move their foot a bit and press a pedal?
  - 9y ago

akira2501 9y ago

> Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. Until you consider the _billions_ of miles that cars in the US drive every month. Cars are exceptionally safe, and they're getting better every year.. because we keep driving _more_ miles year after year, yet fatalities continue to drop. Also, how do you interpret facts like: California has 30% more people living in it than Texas, yet TX has a _greater_ number of roadway fatalities than CA? > they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary The problem is: you absolutely cannot view vehicles as a _single_ risk factor. Thus, any comparison between human drivers and AI drivers on these terms is flawed from the outset.

caconym_ 9y ago
Cars are a leading cause of death in the US, especially among young people. That's a fact worth taking notice of, regardless of how many miles are driven or whatever else. Yes, it's great that fatalaties are trending downwards.
- petre 9y ago
  So cap the power, weight and speed of cars young people are allowed to drive. In the US you can only vote at 21, but you can join the army and kill people if you're 18 and in most states drive powerful cars at 16 (although subject to some conditions such as a curfew and limits on the number of underage passengers present in the vehicle). In most European countries one can only drive heavy quadricycles (<=450 kg curb weight, <=15kW, <=45 km/h by construction) at 16 years of age. Same for autonomous vehicles: until the NTSB or whatever federal or state agency is responsible decides which tech is mature enough and issues licenses for a given AV system. A person has to have a driver's license, however AV systems do not. Why not certify which of them are able to operate heavier/more powerful/faster vehicles without human intervention (meaning they'd slow down to a stop when the driver would take his/her hands off the wheel).
CydeWeys 9y ago
Cars are not anything close to exceptionally safe. Indeed, they are the exact opposite: They are the most dangeorus thing that most people encounter on a daily basis. There are many age and other cohorts of the population for which the leading cause of death is vehicles. And compare against commercial aviation, which has a per-mile death rate three orders of magnitude less than driving.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]