3 ms·
> That's the entire point of Stallman's essay. Those what-ifs (EDIT: well, #2 and #3) aren't things the self-driving car (or a human driver, in most cases) will
by garmaine 6y ago
> That's the entire point of Stallman's essay. Those what-ifs (EDIT: well, #2 and #3) aren't things the self-driving car (or a human driver, in most cases) will compute in the milliseconds it takes to make a decision.
It could be computed in the seconds, or minutes which lead up to the incident. A smart driver, human or AI, has a ready, already computed backup plan.
- function_seven 6y agoYou count the number of occupants in the car behind you, and you factor that into your braking strategy? Or, do you count occupants in the car ahead, and prepare to do the pedestrian math if a quick avoidance is needed? No, of course not. If I'm about to rear-end another car, even if it's a 1973 Ford Pinto with 4 occupants, I'm not going to swerve toward sidewalk pedestrians in lieu of slamming on the brakes. Even if I have all the information ahead of time on that car's faults and occupancy level. Nor would I want a computer to make that decision either. You're not wrong. These are things a computer could do. But I'd say that they're not something we want them to be doing. We don't need programmers debating trolley-problem scenarios. They can focus on just reducing or eliminating impacts directly caused by the system they're building. In other words, just hit the brakes.
- garmaine 6y agoI agree. I’m just asserting that the point made by Stallman about there not being enough computational capacity in the milliseconds before a crash to compute the trolly problem is a straw man.