4 ms·

>This is tangential to your point, but in many (I'd guess most) parts of this country, that is not true. Unless you are under the influence, distracted driver's

>This is tangential to your point, but in many (I'd guess most) parts of this country, that is not true. Unless you are under the influence, distracted driver's frequently kill others, and the cops don't press charges, chalking it up to "mistake". Wasn't it proven that their system recognized the pedestrian and continued driving? That means business logic killed a person. Somebody, somewhere within Uber made the calculation that more miles of uninterrupted data was more valuable to them than public safety. If a jury could be convinced that I, as an individual, recognized a person and chose to purposely continue driving to save myself time, that's manslaughter.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> If a jury could be convinced that I, as an individual, recognized a person and purposely continued driving, that's manslaughter. Seems more like murder, of either the depraved heart or plain intentional kind.
marcoperaza 8y ago
Computer systems aren't people. You're anthropomorphizing the self-driving car. We don't hold cars morally accountable. The software in the car may "recognize a pedestrian", but that's not the same as a person "recognizing a pedestrian". A person would be liable for continuing to drive under those circumstances because they are thought to be able to choose otherwise[1]. The software in the car could not do otherwise. It is not a person, but an object programmed by a person. So whereas a person is expected to "perceive information" -> "act reasonably", a machine by definition can only "receive input" -> "process as instructed". So the question here has to be whether the creator of the machine acted reasonably in designing the machine as they did. [1] This may be a fiction, but one at the heart of how we see each other morally accountable agents, and one that underlies all legal systems.
- tonysdg 8y ago
  > So the question here has to be whether the creator of the machine acted reasonably in designing the machine as they did. I'm wary of this line of reasoning. No programmer outside of a terrorist organization will ever intentionally design a machine poorly. If a civil engineer -- specifically a Professional Engineer in the U.S. -- signs off on an unsafe bridge, and that bridge later collapses and kills someone, you can bet your arse they're getting sued and possibly charged with a crime. Unfortunately, we have no real equivalent to this in software engineering/programming -- the concept of a Professional Engineer doesn't exist, and so no one can be held accountable for faulty designs. Yes, this would bring software development to a grinding halt. I for one don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. It doesn't have to be for every project too -- after all, you don't need a PE to sign off before you build a shed in your backyard. Likewise, a web browser or video game probably ain't gonna need that level of accountability. But for a self-driving car? If someone isn't willing to be held accountable for the software failing, I personally feel the system shouldn't be allowed on the road.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    You don't need professional regulation to have accountability. Every day in America, people who negligently cause injury to others are held accountable by the tort system. If a self-driving car hurts someone, the people who created and operated it can be hauled into court and forced to justify their decisions. Jurors will hear the testimony of experts in the relevant fields and then decide who should bear the burden of the injury.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If a jury could be convinced that I, as an individual, recognized a person and purposely continued driving, that's manslaughter. Seems more like murder, of either the depraved heart or plain intentional kind.

marcoperaza 8y ago

Computer systems aren't people. You're anthropomorphizing the self-driving car. We don't hold cars morally accountable. The software in the car may "recognize a pedestrian", but that's not the same as a person "recognizing a pedestrian". A person would be liable for continuing to drive under those circumstances because they are thought to be able to choose otherwise[1]. The software in the car could not do otherwise. It is not a person, but an object programmed by a person. So whereas a person is expected to "perceive information" -> "act reasonably", a machine by definition can only "receive input" -> "process as instructed". So the question here has to be whether the creator of the machine acted reasonably in designing the machine as they did. [1] This may be a fiction, but one at the heart of how we see each other morally accountable agents, and one that underlies all legal systems.

tonysdg 8y ago
> So the question here has to be whether the creator of the machine acted reasonably in designing the machine as they did. I'm wary of this line of reasoning. No programmer outside of a terrorist organization will ever intentionally design a machine poorly. If a civil engineer -- specifically a Professional Engineer in the U.S. -- signs off on an unsafe bridge, and that bridge later collapses and kills someone, you can bet your arse they're getting sued and possibly charged with a crime. Unfortunately, we have no real equivalent to this in software engineering/programming -- the concept of a Professional Engineer doesn't exist, and so no one can be held accountable for faulty designs. Yes, this would bring software development to a grinding halt. I for one don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. It doesn't have to be for every project too -- after all, you don't need a PE to sign off before you build a shed in your backyard. Likewise, a web browser or video game probably ain't gonna need that level of accountability. But for a self-driving car? If someone isn't willing to be held accountable for the software failing, I personally feel the system shouldn't be allowed on the road.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  You don't need professional regulation to have accountability. Every day in America, people who negligently cause injury to others are held accountable by the tort system. If a self-driving car hurts someone, the people who created and operated it can be hauled into court and forced to justify their decisions. Jurors will hear the testimony of experts in the relevant fields and then decide who should bear the burden of the injury.