3 ms·

This is surely the rational way to handle it. But I'm not convinced a judge and jury would see it the same way. The prosecution would likely argue that no comp

This is surely the rational way to handle it. But I'm not convinced a judge and jury would see it the same way. The prosecution would likely argue that no computer program can be a match for a human's ability handle new and surprising situations: the "driver" must still pay full attention to the road, whether a computer is driving or not. It would not be enough for a computer to be statistically better at driving, it would also have to not make mistakes that a reasonable person wouldn't make. Also, we don't have information on how error-prone this system actually is. All we know is that a car it was driving had one accident. We don't know how many times the human driver had to take control because it would have otherwise crashed. [obligatory IANAL]

tbrownaw 16y ago
> argue that no computer program can be a match for a human's ability handle new and surprising situations I suspect that this ability is due to our having more awareness of context. I imagine it wouldn't be terribly hard to dump a larger amount of contextual knowledge into a car, probably just attach an expert system and pay a few tens of millions of dollars to have people fill it with data. I'm not sure what the state of machine learning is, but they could perhaps pay owners to upload logs (maybe especially after any accident / close call, or maybe that would give a skewed perception) and then crunch those to find new rules. > Also, we don't have information on how error-prone this system actually is. All we know is that a car it was driving had one accident. We don't know how many times the human driver had to take control because it would have otherwise crashed. Yup, that the humans ever took control at all says it probably isn't quite ready yet. But it looks very promising. If I ever have kids I might not need to deal with them learning to drive, and maybe my next car could let me browse the internet on the way in to socialize (well, why else won't they let me telecommute?) at work.

tbrownaw 16y ago

> argue that no computer program can be a match for a human's ability handle new and surprising situations I suspect that this ability is due to our having more awareness of context. I imagine it wouldn't be terribly hard to dump a larger amount of contextual knowledge into a car, probably just attach an expert system and pay a few tens of millions of dollars to have people fill it with data. I'm not sure what the state of machine learning is, but they could perhaps pay owners to upload logs (maybe especially after any accident / close call, or maybe that would give a skewed perception) and then crunch those to find new rules. > Also, we don't have information on how error-prone this system actually is. All we know is that a car it was driving had one accident. We don't know how many times the human driver had to take control because it would have otherwise crashed. Yup, that the humans ever took control at all says it probably isn't quite ready yet. But it looks very promising. If I ever have kids I might not need to deal with them learning to drive, and maybe my next car could let me browse the internet on the way in to socialize (well, why else won't they let me telecommute?) at work.