6 ms·

I’m getting downvoted for voicing my opinion on a darling HN technology, is that it? Next time I’ll just keep my mouth shut (as I usually do because of the down

I’m getting downvoted for voicing my opinion on a darling HN technology, is that it? Next time I’ll just keep my mouth shut (as I usually do because of the downvote brigade). This time, I’ll bite. I guess you guys have never driven in Africa. Or Asia. Braking is not always the best course of action is actually dangerous in some situations. Like if I can see someone screaming up behind me in the fast lane, there’s a car next to me that means I can’t move out of the way, so I need to accelerate to get past that car and move out of the way. If I don’t get out of the way I’m now in a stressful situation with an unpredictable and often reckless driver behind me, often right up against my tail. Maybe it’s better on average but personally I prefer to have full control of my vehicle.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
I think it will be a long time before AEB is mandatory in Africa or Asia, so you should be good in that case. Personally I think this is a sort of moral hazard scenario, where exactly the people who most need AEB would be the ones who would turn it off. So even if it makes a few people unhappy, I'd probably support not allowing the user to have control over this safety feature. Of course we'd need to study the issue to establish whether this is the case.
praxulus 6y ago
>Like if I can see someone screaming up behind me in the fast lane, there’s a car next to me that means I can’t move out of the way, so I need to accelerate to get past that car and move out of the way. Sounds like that guy's car should have automatic braking.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Even if the car isn't "screaming up behind you" if someone is closing at a decent rate of speed your two non-jerk options are move faster and then move over or move slower then move over. Depending on what's beside you faster might be the obviously better option.
jeffreygoesto 6y ago
In near-critical situations there tend to be disjoint optima in how the group of participants need to behave in order to avoid an incident. If the automated system is programmed to prefer the more - hm how would you call it - calm, civilized, obedient "minimum", but the participants the more agressive one, I can feel your problem. Sometimes just squeezing through resolves a situation more directly and quickly. The designers of those systems are usually not allowed to prefer that. Even if the system would recognize it properly (which needs much more processing power, because the search space is much bigger and, as mentioned, non-convex. I don't think you should be downvoted, because that is one of the core ethical aspects we need to discuss about those systems. And how they interact with humans. SV dystopia "soon there won't be humans in the loop" doesn't help here.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
maccard 6y ago
> Like if I can see someone screaming up behind me in the fast lane, there’s a car next to me that means I can’t move out of the way, so I need to accelerate to get past that car and move out of the way. Those vehicles exist outside of the countries you mentioned, and the correct thing to do is to keep going and move out of the way when it's safe. WHat if the car on the inside sees the other car too and accelerates to give you room to drop behind him? now you've made the situation worse for 3 people.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

I think it will be a long time before AEB is mandatory in Africa or Asia, so you should be good in that case. Personally I think this is a sort of moral hazard scenario, where exactly the people who most need AEB would be the ones who would turn it off. So even if it makes a few people unhappy, I'd probably support not allowing the user to have control over this safety feature. Of course we'd need to study the issue to establish whether this is the case.

praxulus 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Even if the car isn't "screaming up behind you" if someone is closing at a decent rate of speed your two non-jerk options are move faster and then move over or move slower then move over. Depending on what's beside you faster might be the obviously better option.

jeffreygoesto 6y ago

In near-critical situations there tend to be disjoint optima in how the group of participants need to behave in order to avoid an incident. If the automated system is programmed to prefer the more - hm how would you call it - calm, civilized, obedient "minimum", but the participants the more agressive one, I can feel your problem. Sometimes just squeezing through resolves a situation more directly and quickly. The designers of those systems are usually not allowed to prefer that. Even if the system would recognize it properly (which needs much more processing power, because the search space is much bigger and, as mentioned, non-convex. I don't think you should be downvoted, because that is one of the core ethical aspects we need to discuss about those systems. And how they interact with humans. SV dystopia "soon there won't be humans in the loop" doesn't help here.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

maccard 6y ago

> Like if I can see someone screaming up behind me in the fast lane, there’s a car next to me that means I can’t move out of the way, so I need to accelerate to get past that car and move out of the way. Those vehicles exist outside of the countries you mentioned, and the correct thing to do is to keep going and move out of the way when it's safe. WHat if the car on the inside sees the other car too and accelerates to give you room to drop behind him? now you've made the situation worse for 3 people.