4 ms·

> to begin the stop It, or the driver, could do more than just stop though. You can change directions, even at 38mph. Then we have to get into other quest

> to begin the stop It, or the driver, could do more than just stop though. You can change directions, even at 38mph. Then we have to get into other questions, would I as a driver willingly sideswipe a car next to me to avoid hitting a pedestrian? Is it reasonable to expect an AI to make the same value decision?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mirimir 9y ago
It's not unknown for people to crash and burn to avoid hitting squirrels. And with modern airbag systems, it's arguably safer for all concerned for cars to risk hitting poles, and even trees. But on the other hand, once leaving the roadway there's the risk of hitting other pedestrians.
- kamaal 9y ago
  This is a major ethical decision to make. What if the airbags don't open up. What if there are other unseen things to crashing one's car to save somebody else's life. I honestly believe given a split second reaction time, any decision made by a human should be considered right. An algorithm however is a different deal, what should happen is already decided in an algorithm, so in some way its already settled who gets killed.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    When driving on surface streets, I do my best to track what's happening wherever in front, not just on the roadway. Given all the sensors on a self-driving car, why can't it detect all moving objects, including those off the roadway, but approaching?
    - kamaal 9y ago
      Its all about what things are hiding behind the opacity. Blind spots are one thing, but if you jump right in front of a car out of nowhere from a place totally invisible to a sensor, its a totally different case. You can't avoid what is hiding.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Yes, of course. But that isn't what happened here, right? A woman and bicycle on a median should have been quite obvious. I don't even see substantial landscaping on the median.[0] 0) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverles...
        bmelton 9y ago
        It appears that's pretty close to what happened here. http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/ http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
      - amazondrone 9y ago
        We can try. In theory, each self-driving vehicle doesn't have to drive in isolation; they can be networked together and take advantage of each other's sensors and other sensors permanently installed as part of the road infrastructure. That would increase the chance a particular vehicle could avoid an accident which it couldn't, on its own, anticipate.
        mirimir 9y ago
        Also the fact that most people now carry tracking devices. And that more and more, there are cameras everywhere. So there's potential for self-driving vehicles to know where everyone is. It would be much safer if all roadways with speed limits over a few km/h were fenced, with tunnels or bridges for pedestrian crossing. Arguably, we would have that now, but for legislative efforts by vehicle manufacturers many decades ago. Maybe we'll get there with The Boring Company.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mirimir 9y ago

It's not unknown for people to crash and burn to avoid hitting squirrels. And with modern airbag systems, it's arguably safer for all concerned for cars to risk hitting poles, and even trees. But on the other hand, once leaving the roadway there's the risk of hitting other pedestrians.

kamaal 9y ago
This is a major ethical decision to make. What if the airbags don't open up. What if there are other unseen things to crashing one's car to save somebody else's life. I honestly believe given a split second reaction time, any decision made by a human should be considered right. An algorithm however is a different deal, what should happen is already decided in an algorithm, so in some way its already settled who gets killed.
- mirimir 9y ago
  When driving on surface streets, I do my best to track what's happening wherever in front, not just on the roadway. Given all the sensors on a self-driving car, why can't it detect all moving objects, including those off the roadway, but approaching?
  - kamaal 9y ago
    Its all about what things are hiding behind the opacity. Blind spots are one thing, but if you jump right in front of a car out of nowhere from a place totally invisible to a sensor, its a totally different case. You can't avoid what is hiding.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Yes, of course. But that isn't what happened here, right? A woman and bicycle on a median should have been quite obvious. I don't even see substantial landscaping on the median.[0] 0) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverles...
      - bmelton 9y ago
        It appears that's pretty close to what happened here. http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/ http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
    - amazondrone 9y ago
      We can try. In theory, each self-driving vehicle doesn't have to drive in isolation; they can be networked together and take advantage of each other's sensors and other sensors permanently installed as part of the road infrastructure. That would increase the chance a particular vehicle could avoid an accident which it couldn't, on its own, anticipate.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Also the fact that most people now carry tracking devices. And that more and more, there are cameras everywhere. So there's potential for self-driving vehicles to know where everyone is. It would be much safer if all roadways with speed limits over a few km/h were fenced, with tunnels or bridges for pedestrian crossing. Arguably, we would have that now, but for legislative efforts by vehicle manufacturers many decades ago. Maybe we'll get there with The Boring Company.