49 ms·

It obviously wouldn't be ethical for Waymo to brake aggressively just to catch out humans tailgating them too closely (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the

It obviously wouldn't be ethical for Waymo to brake aggressively just to catch out humans tailgating them too closely (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the insurance of the car behind them will pay for damage and let's say they do this only when there are no human occupants). Even though it's a "flaw" in the tailgater's behaviour and even though he will have the responsibility assigned to him. So is it ethical to brake aggressively to avoid a 1% chance of an accident up ahead? 5%? 0.1%? This is a real life trolley problem, and the answer can't be as simple as "always brake, feel no remorse because it's the other driver's problem" even if that might be a good heuristic for a human to teach in driver's education.

kube-system 2y ago
That isn't just unethical, it is illegal. You can't intentionally cause an accident. The waymo would have the responsibility assigned to them if it was determined that was programmed that way intentionally.
- crote 2y ago
  It doesn't need to be intentionally programmed to cause an accident. The far more likely scenario is that it simply doesn't take into account what's behind them. It causes accidents by unintentional negligence, simply because nobody bothered to add a check. Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking, and you will be taught to activate your alarm lights when there's a sudden stop on a highway to alert the drivers after you. Basic self-preservation makes it pretty clear that you don't want a car crashing into your rear. Waymo doesn't need to care. If the other vehicle is considered at fault, their insurance is going to pay for your damages. It's at worst a minor inconvenience, so why bother spending engineering time on writing code to avoid it?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking If I'm going to crash into something I'm going to be slamming the brakes without checking my mirrors first.
    - toast0 2y ago
      Priorities. You should brake immediately to avoid an impending collision, of course. OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. Additionally, in the impending collision decision, once you've taken initial action, you'll want to check on traffic to see if you have an option to evade the obstacle. And if you don't have an out, if there's a vehicle behind you and try to maintain space ahead and behind if possible.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. If there's room to stop, then I'll still be braking immediately because braking immediately gives me the most time to brake, which makes the deceleration as gradual as possible and gives the person behind me the most time to react. I'm not sure what the alternative is supposed to be. Delay braking but having brake harder later? Gun it and try to run the yellow?
        happymellon 2y ago
        No, you should brake. It sounds like people defending their terrible driving.
      - mlazos 2y ago
        I had to retake a driver’s test recently and I’ve never heard of checking your mirrors before a yellow. What’s “a vehicle unlikely to stop” even mean? Like I can ascertain that in a second? The driver behind you is supposed to be traveling a minimum safe distance behind you for their reaction time. If they aren’t it’s 100% their problem.
        toast0 2y ago
        > If they aren’t it’s 100% their problem. It's your problem too if you stop for a yellow and they don't. They may be 100% at fault, but you're delayed at best, at worst may be injured and may not have a driveable car, and they may not carry insurance, so you may have a large, uncompensated loss. By 'unlikely to stop', I really mean 'unlikely to stop without striking your vehicle if you were to stop', so things like following too closely, clearly not paying attention (which is hard to tell in a quick glance, but maybe you noticed their lack of attention before and haven't had time or space to make space), has a large vehicle that needs more room to stop, etc. I likely wouldn't stop on a fresh yellow if there was a trash truck following me closely, for example. Even at the extreme where I end up running a fresh red, it's more likely a better result than getting rear ended by a vehicle that's around 10x the weight of mine.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > The far more likely scenario is that it simply doesn't take into account what's behind them. Which would make it a bad driver.
- hoseja 2y ago
  Good luck extracting intention from the driving AI.
tstrimple 2y ago
> (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the insurance of the car behind them will pay for damage and let's say they do this only when there are no human occupants That vehicle will still be taken out of rotation for repairs. In situations like that, does the insurance typically cover lost revenue as well? Otherwise there's still a ton of risk for Waymo if it's a typical deductible + repair costs. I genuinely know nothing about insuring a business like Waymo.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Depends on state law: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-USE-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-U... But generally, yes, loss of use is generally something that courts recognize as a valid claim.

kube-system 2y ago

That isn't just unethical, it is illegal. You can't intentionally cause an accident. The waymo would have the responsibility assigned to them if it was determined that was programmed that way intentionally.

crote 2y ago
It doesn't need to be intentionally programmed to cause an accident. The far more likely scenario is that it simply doesn't take into account what's behind them. It causes accidents by unintentional negligence, simply because nobody bothered to add a check. Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking, and you will be taught to activate your alarm lights when there's a sudden stop on a highway to alert the drivers after you. Basic self-preservation makes it pretty clear that you don't want a car crashing into your rear. Waymo doesn't need to care. If the other vehicle is considered at fault, their insurance is going to pay for your damages. It's at worst a minor inconvenience, so why bother spending engineering time on writing code to avoid it?
- gruez 2y ago
  >Human drivers are taught to avoid scenarios like that. During drivers' lessons you will be taught to check your mirror before braking If I'm going to crash into something I'm going to be slamming the brakes without checking my mirrors first.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Priorities. You should brake immediately to avoid an impending collision, of course. OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. Additionally, in the impending collision decision, once you've taken initial action, you'll want to check on traffic to see if you have an option to evade the obstacle. And if you don't have an out, if there's a vehicle behind you and try to maintain space ahead and behind if possible.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >OTOH, if you're driving and the light changes to yellow and you have room to stop, you should check your mirrors to see if there's a vehicle behind you that's unlikely to stop. If there's room to stop, then I'll still be braking immediately because braking immediately gives me the most time to brake, which makes the deceleration as gradual as possible and gives the person behind me the most time to react. I'm not sure what the alternative is supposed to be. Delay braking but having brake harder later? Gun it and try to run the yellow?
      - happymellon 2y ago
        No, you should brake. It sounds like people defending their terrible driving.
    - mlazos 2y ago
      I had to retake a driver’s test recently and I’ve never heard of checking your mirrors before a yellow. What’s “a vehicle unlikely to stop” even mean? Like I can ascertain that in a second? The driver behind you is supposed to be traveling a minimum safe distance behind you for their reaction time. If they aren’t it’s 100% their problem.
      - toast0 2y ago
        > If they aren’t it’s 100% their problem. It's your problem too if you stop for a yellow and they don't. They may be 100% at fault, but you're delayed at best, at worst may be injured and may not have a driveable car, and they may not carry insurance, so you may have a large, uncompensated loss. By 'unlikely to stop', I really mean 'unlikely to stop without striking your vehicle if you were to stop', so things like following too closely, clearly not paying attention (which is hard to tell in a quick glance, but maybe you noticed their lack of attention before and haven't had time or space to make space), has a large vehicle that needs more room to stop, etc. I likely wouldn't stop on a fresh yellow if there was a trash truck following me closely, for example. Even at the extreme where I end up running a fresh red, it's more likely a better result than getting rear ended by a vehicle that's around 10x the weight of mine.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > The far more likely scenario is that it simply doesn't take into account what's behind them. Which would make it a bad driver.
hoseja 2y ago
Good luck extracting intention from the driving AI.

tstrimple 2y ago

> (at no risk to Waymo, after all, since the insurance of the car behind them will pay for damage and let's say they do this only when there are no human occupants That vehicle will still be taken out of rotation for repairs. In situations like that, does the insurance typically cover lost revenue as well? Otherwise there's still a ton of risk for Waymo if it's a typical deductible + repair costs. I genuinely know nothing about insuring a business like Waymo.

kube-system 2y ago
Depends on state law: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-USE-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LOSS-OF-U... But generally, yes, loss of use is generally something that courts recognize as a valid claim.