4 ms·
Reminds me of all of those ethics debates back when fully self driving cars were basically already here ca 10 years ago. The ones talking about how hard it wou
by hypfer 4mo ago
Reminds me of all of those ethics debates back when fully self driving cars were basically already here ca 10 years ago.
The ones talking about how hard it would be to chose which person to run over.
Additionally, I find it hard to believe that this would be a case of the future just not being distributed evenly.
But sure. The AI labs relying on hype stating 15-50% risk of building a magic entity is certainly a reliable number.
- bandrami 4mo agoI mean, I'm very much tech-forward and have spent the past decade in major world cities and I've seen a driverless car once in my life. Sometimes things that seem inevitable really aren't.
- JuniperMesos 4mo agoI see driverless cars all the time in San Francisco and I'm eagerly awaiting the regulatory decisions that will allow them to be widely available in the bay area at large.
- weregiraffe 4mo agoIt's not driverless until you can sleep while it drives.
- myst 4mo agoUntil you can sleep on the road.
- chii 4mo agoSuch cars are already operating in shanghai. It's not talked about much in the west media, but that's just how news is today. Achievements are only so when done by the west! Driverless car's only real obstacle is regulatory acceptance, not technical.
- IanCal 4mo agoCan’t you? They’re taxis right?
- silon42 4mo agoCar needs to drive me to work and then go back home to charge.
- olyjohn 4mo agoYay twice as much traffic!
- kortilla 4mo agoDo you know what Waymo is?
- dbspin 4mo agoIt's not driverless unless it doesn't have a driver. Some poor guy in hydrobad 'monitoring' (read frequently taking over from) ten cars at a time, while being paid a statistically insignificant portion of a western taxi drivers salary does not count as 'self driving'.
- bandrami 4mo agoYes and people have been eagerly awaiting the broader adoption of this allegedly inevitable technology for a decade now, which is exactly my point
- rozal 4mo ago[dead]
- esailija 4mo agoThey are not actually driverless, they have remote human operators for the edge cases.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- otabdeveloper4 4mo agoDriverless airplanes and driverless trains existed for many, many decades. There's still a highly paid and trained guy in the cabin though, for obvious reasons. Cars aren't any different. Do you really care about the exact kind of autopilot software when flying?
- Fritatta 4mo agoNo more flight engineers though.
- nopinsight 4mo agoThings in the real world often take longer than expected. Still, in cities where Waymo operates, many people routinely ride autonomous vehicles and prefer them. For software, however, a rapid turn is often a possibility. See: AI for coding over the last 3-4 years. AI autocomplete --> AI coding assistants --> vibe coding --> agent orchestration Coders can now accomplish work that used to take a week or longer in a couple of hours, with the right tools and skills. --- A key issue the article implies is that the real world increasingly runs on software.
- RandomLensman 4mo agoBut there is also still a huge part that doesn't run on software with so far little change.
- nopinsight 4mo agoWith incessant advances in robotics, how long would that continue to be the case? Should we start preparing for something that could be world-changing in the next 10-20 years?
- RandomLensman 4mo agoFor how the world might change in 10-20? I'd say no need to prepare, too many hypotheticals.
- nopinsight 4mo ago"Ten years from now, I think we will realize that we were standing in the foothills of the singularity now... I believe that we're only a few years away from [AGI], maybe 2030 plus or minus a year... I think [AGI] will be an enormous transformative technology, it's going to effectively be a new human era... We can feel this year, I would say, even though I've been working towards this for 30 years, I think this year with the way the agents are working and tool use, it started to become really useful, still early days of it, but genuinely useful in people's workflows... And it's not any one thing, it's several different technologies, several use cases, several things that I thought were maybe a bit further out, turned out to be now, that are coming together that make me feel that in aggregate. I think society needs to hear that because we don't have long to prepare for what that means." -- Demi Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind & Nobel laureate https://x.com/deredleritt3r/status/2062223035940139253 https://x.com/deredleritt3r/status/2062223035940139253
- nikanj 4mo agoI have had my license for over 20 years and to this day have not encountered a single event where I had to decide who to kill
- thatjoeoverthr 4mo agoThis strand of philosowank is just there to promote the idea you need to kill for the greater good. The only trolly problem that matters is brake maintenance.
- tzs 4mo agoNeither have I. The number of people who have encountered such events is probably close to negligible. However I bet there is a good chance that will not be the case for self-driving cars. The reason is simple: human brains are slow. When caught by surprise by an unexpected sudden obstacle a human driver takes about a second to realize something must be done and decide on braking or swerving in the fastest path, where the brain bypasses conscious decision making and uses the lower level fight or flight system. (Then another maybe 0.2 second to actually start swerving or 0.4 seconds to actually start pressing the brake--brake takes longer because of the need to move the foot to the brake pedal whereas the hands should already be on the steering wheel). If they try to actually evaluate whether swerving or braking is the better choice before acting add another 0.3 to 0.5 seconds. That brings it up to around 1.6 to 2 seconds before they start actually acting, which most of the time is going to too late to actually affect things. Hence essentially no trolly problems for human drivers. Compare to a self-driving car. The can detect the obstacle and predict the collision, and do a cycle of path planning before the retina has finished registering the obstacle and started transmitting that information to the brain. By the time a human reaches the point where the brain knows something bad is happening and is starting to deal with it the self-driving car has had time to calculate numerous alternative trajectories to try to get around the object or stop before reaching it, taking into account predictions where all surrounding objects will move during the next few seconds, and calculate the damages for the trajectories that cannot avoid hitting something.
- kakacik 4mo agoI've had few close calls, they are easy to come by in specific environments. Typical situation - tight winding mountain (but well paved) roads to some remote villages where even basic small European cars need to slow down to walking pace to meet and pass, sometimes one has to reverse, very curvy. You go down, in your lane as much as possible, and behind some tight curve there is a) extremely slow cyclist; or b) somebody/something stationary, while in opposite direction there is at the worst place incoming car, also oblivious of the danger till last moment. Even rather slow driving won't magically remove all possible cases. Then its a question of hitting opposite car or that obstacle, and you have a split second to act, not really to decide. Quick reaction and good brakes on both sides can save it, but there is a lot of room for disaster. Add truck/bus to the equation to make it more juicy where you pick your/your family possible death or that cyclist/stationary folks.