4 ms·

> I set up the scenario to show that no matter how careful the consumer is, their supervision will not work in practice (since the vehicle's behavior can change

by ajross 3y ago

> I set up the scenario to show that no matter how careful the consumer is, their supervision will not work in practice (since the vehicle's behavior can change at any time and without warning) Sorry, can you explain that better? The whole point to the metaphor of "supervision" (e.g. of party A by party B) is that party A is not trusted to behave correctly in all circumstances. You seem to be saying that supervision can only work if B is never required to intervene at all (and by extension, won't, if A's behavior changes)? In which case there's no supervision happening, right? Again, it really seems like you're just playing tricks to make the manufacturer into an unsolvable villain. I mean, you get that's ridiculous right? We trust our cars not to fail already. And have, for a century. And sometimes they do fail, and when that happens we adjust regulatory strategies to minimize risk. Why is any of that different when there's a scary robot involved?

djbusby 3y ago
Did you miss the part where the automobile features and behaviors can suddenly change because of software? But my 1971 Buick is almost exactly the same as it was. There are no sudden changes. When the operator doesn't have full Agency of their hardware, can they be held accountable for it's unexpected behavior?
- ajross 3y ago
  > When the operator doesn't have full Agency of their hardware, can they be held accountable for it's unexpected behavior? Yes? Because that's what "supervision" means? Again, I'm very much not following your logic. The whole idea behind supervised autonomy[1] is that the device may not behave correctly. Period. If you aren't capable of supervising your car after an update you clearly weren't doing any supervision before the update. [1] Or supervised anything! Would you argue against holding parents accountable for childproofing their homes just because their kids got an "update" and learned to walk? Again I really don't think you're thinking this through.

by ajross 3y ago

djbusby 3y ago

Did you miss the part where the automobile features and behaviors can suddenly change because of software? But my 1971 Buick is almost exactly the same as it was. There are no sudden changes. When the operator doesn't have full Agency of their hardware, can they be held accountable for it's unexpected behavior?

ajross 3y ago
> When the operator doesn't have full Agency of their hardware, can they be held accountable for it's unexpected behavior? Yes? Because that's what "supervision" means? Again, I'm very much not following your logic. The whole idea behind supervised autonomy[1] is that the device may not behave correctly. Period. If you aren't capable of supervising your car after an update you clearly weren't doing any supervision before the update. [1] Or supervised anything! Would you argue against holding parents accountable for childproofing their homes just because their kids got an "update" and learned to walk? Again I really don't think you're thinking this through.