3 ms·
I think that the way you handle malicious actors now is that people know that they have a laser in their eyes. This would be more like "what if someone could j
by aetherson 12y ago
I think that the way you handle malicious actors now is that people know that they have a laser in their eyes. This would be more like "what if someone could just make another car or obstacle invisible to you, and you have no way of knowing it."
I agree it is a very rare event, and will always continue to be. But it would need to be handled, and handled in ways other than, "Hi, here's a 100 car pile-up."
Similarly, and probably less rarely, you'd need to handle scenarios in which another actor wasn't malicious per se, but faulty to a degree that it was functionally malicious. Of course, we've always had to handle the idea that somebody might be driving a car with bad brakes, and that's dangerous enough, but before now a car with bad brakes wouldn't also make the brakes bad for ten cars around them. I think that's worthy of some contemplation.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoI agree with the sentiment. There's a lot to consider and test in practice, though any of those scenarios don't sound like show-stoppers. After all, humans are also machines, and where a person can "know that they have a laser in their eyes", a machine can equally well realize that one of its sensors suddenly started reporting weird results that don't match the expectations and that don't seem to agree with other sensors onboard or with what other cars nearby are reporting. We'll have to sort out a lot of those scenarios, many by means of "testing in production", but as long as self-driving cars can outperform humans on average, we'll be better off.