3 ms·
Engineers often fail to realize you can't cheese a judge and if you try to, the law will come down much, much harder on you. Either one of two things will be t
by ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Engineers often fail to realize you can't cheese a judge and if you try to, the law will come down much, much harder on you.
Either one of two things will be the case with this approach:
1. The algorithm will be too imperceptibly different to be treated as a different program. Adding some tiny decimals somewhere won't make it unlikely to make the same mistakes, and the entire class of algorithms will be treated as one.
2. The algorithm will be different enough to make different decisions, which means one program is probably "better" than the other(s) and they'll be taking a bigger risk by deploying cars to the road that are more dangerous than others.
- eru 5y agoJudges are human indeed. But things like tax dodges still exist and other loopholes. You just need good enough lawyers to structure things for you. Your second point would lead to a ban on all but one self-driving car systems, when taken seriously?
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoI don't know about that. I do think that if, say, Google operated a spectrum of 1,000 self-driving algorithms, and knew that some were safer than others, a judge would take a very dim view to knowingly deploying less safe cars than others. And even from a business standpoint, it wouldn't be good business to have less safe (aka, higher liability) cars on the road.
- eru 5y agoWhy would Google know that some of them are less safe than others? Just have variations that don't dominate each other. Variant A could be better at some things, and variant B could be better at other things, etc. (Otherwise, we should use your argument to only allow exactly one company with the 'best' system on the road. Instead of allowing competition.) Google could even officially outsource the different variants to different nominally independent companies, if that's what's legally required to not get the whole fleet grounded.