Trust autonomous cars?

[Fabian Flaa]

I'm writing a text for school with the motive to encourage people to trust autonomous cars. I thought i'd post here and see if we can get a bit of a disussion going about weather you should trust autonomous cars or not, and why? 

[zMeul]

no I do not trust them, not on the same street with a human driven car

an autonomous car is only as good as the people who programmed it and it cannot handle unforeseeable events like a human can

 

and there's the problem of legal consequences when a autonomous car fails and kills someone - who's hold responsible? the manufacturer, the owner ... both of them?

[slightlyjaded]

9 minutes ago, Fabian Flaa said:

I'm writing a text for school with the motive to encourage people to trust autonomous cars. I thought i'd post here and see if we can get a bit of a disussion going about weather you should trust autonomous cars or not, and why? 

Autonomous cars are great as long as they can process the conditions, and the decisions of everything around them, They respond quicker, and in a more predictable way than their human counterparts...Which is also their downfall... Any condition they are not programmed for, then they fall back on their closest condition, which may, or may not have anything to do with the current condition. Add to that the fact that human drivers are inherantly chaotic, and if you cannot contrl them, then you cannot control the input into a controlled system, rendering computer programming invalid (please note you can control other drivers options(it's how I drive in the city) By having a big enough pair, and removing the other driver's options leaving them with one obvious choice)

[slightlyjaded]

Just now, zMeul said:

no I do not trust them, not on the same street with a human driven car

an autonomous car is only as good as the people who programmed it and it cannot handle unforeseeable events like a human can

dude, you're using a laughing man avatar... It's pretty obvious where your allegiances lie on this argument.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, slightlyjaded said:

dude, you're using a puppet master avatar... It's pretty obvious where your allegiances lie on this argument.

if you followed GITS, that should give you a pretty good idea why AI / humans don't mix very well

[slightlyjaded]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

if you followed GITS, that should give you a pretty good idea why AI / humans don't mix very well

Yeah, but it isn't even that. I'm an asimov fan, and I remember what happened with R. Daneel olivaw at the end of foundation.

[Princess Luna]

It isn't about trust or not, some people just like driving their cars themselves, I doubt I will ever buy one myself, really hope this doesn't become an obligation or something here in 20 years.

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, slightlyjaded said:

Yeah, but it isn't even that. I'm an asimov fan, and I remember what happened with R. Daneel olivaw at the end of foundation.

Asimov's 3 laws of robotics are broken by autonomous cars

 

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[slightlyjaded]

Just now, zMeul said:

Asimov's 3 laws of robotics are broken by autonomous cars

 

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov's three laws are broken by asimov.... As I said R. Daneel olivaw. He shows up againat the end of foundation where he explains why they didn't actually work.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, slightlyjaded said:

Asimov's three laws are broken by asimov.... As I said R. Daneel olivaw. He shows up againat the end of foundation where he explains why they didn't actually work.

one is fiction and quite another is the real world:

 

 

[Froody129]

For them to work and be safe all cars need to be autonomous on the road. This will prevent accidents and reduce traffic. The issue is what happens in a place like South Africa where there are lots of places where you need an off-road capable car? Will they be able to that? 

 

Also so there's the issue of some people still wanting to drive manually, where autonomous cars won't work until they can communicate with each other so they can decide what to do.

[Froody129]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

As long as it allows the driver to take manual control on the fly, and isn't made by Samsung, I'm fine with it. 

*plugs Note 7 into Ford Kuga*

[slightlyjaded]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

one is fiction and quite another is the real world:

 

 

We still base a lot of our ideas about robotics, AI, and the programming of them on his, and clark's work.

 

Basically my argument was that giscard (might have spelt it wrong, it's been a decade or so) at the end of the Solaris books reveals that he's psychic, and the fact that he can conceptualise emotional pain renders the three laws invalid as he cannot deal with the realities of dealing with emotional pain Vs physical pain which is why he can kill. It's revealed in a later book that he passes his abilities onto olivaw, who because of his dealing with human society can process it better.

 

Any self driving car is a rudimentary AI system, that if programmed properly is going to learn from experience. Having to make decisions between two evils is going to be the basis for this sort of programming moving foward... "Do I plow into the bus shelter with 60 schoolkids, or do I take out the bike rider in the right hand lane?"

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, slightlyjaded said:

"Do I plow into the bus shelter with 60 schoolkids, or do I take out the bike rider in the right hand lane?"

this is why I said numerous times that self driving cars do not belong on "human" roads

even fucking planes can knock eachother out of the sky - and they're much much complicated (to be read evolved programming) than cars and have been in development for way longer

[slightlyjaded]

Just now, zMeul said:

this is why I said numerous times that self driving cars do not belong on "human" roads

even fucking planes can knock eachother out of the sky - and they're much much complicated (to be read evolved programming) than cars and have been in development for way longer

The autopilot is very rudimentary as well. It doesn't actually have to "think" It's decision making process because of the sparcity of air traffic is "Is there anything that could possiblt run into me=1 Then inform pilot, and get out of the way" Because of the reaction time required with air traffic, this is a viable option. With a car however chances are when the cruise control fails, you're going to have the driver in the back of the winnebago making themselves a cup of tea.

[Litargirio]

2 hours ago, slightlyjaded said:

The autopilot is very rudimentary as well.

Here's the just a few cases of the Tesla autopilot predicting and in some cases avoiding accidents:

 

 

 

[BuckGup]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

no I do not trust them, not on the same street with a human driven car

an autonomous car is only as good as the people who programmed it and it cannot handle unforeseeable events like a human can

 

and there's the problem of legal consequences when a autonomous car fails and kills someone - who's hold responsible? the manufacturer, the owner ... both of them?

That doesn't make any sense. You said a self driving car is only as good as a human is which I agree with up to a point of reaction time and visibility with things like fog. Then you said they can't handle unforeseeable events like humans? If a human programmed it then it can surely react to events that a human could. I mean if every driver was 100% awake, alert, checking mirrors, and so on there would hardly be any accidents. But they are texting, eating, listening to music too loud, or under the influence. Self driving cars would eliminate 99% of accidents on the road. As for the question of it killing someone. Why would it ever need to be in that situation? If it comes down to say someone crossing the street and it couldn't stop in time it is 100% that persons fault who got hit.

[zMeul]

8 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

If a human programmed it then it can surely react to events that a human could. I mean if every driver was 100% awake

that's not true

you cannot program a computer to behave like a human - humans can act instinctively while computers act according to an algorithm

to understand what I'm talking about, I suggest you see the movie "Sully" and pay close attention to the NTSB hearing

 

Quote

But they are texting, eating, listening to music too loud, or under the influence. Self driving cars would eliminate 99% of accidents on the road.

and that's the biggest bullshittiest excuse for self driving car's existence - replace one problem with another

[BuckGup]

8 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that's not true

you cannot program a computer to behave like a human - humans can act instinctively while computers act according to an algorithm

to understand what I'm talking about, I suggest you see the movie "Sully" and pay close attention to the NTSB hearing

 

and that's the biggest bullshittiest excuse for self driving car's existence - replace one problem with another

I don't get it are you scared of change or something? Self driving cars are good for everyone. We already have self flying planes and no ones bats an eye. Also yes I have seen the movie Sully and they said he could have made it back to the airport. I don't necessarily agree with them but I don't think human instinct was the reason he landed the plane. I think it was the 40 years of experience.  

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

I don't get it are you scared of change or something?

if that's the excuse to combat my arguments, then we're done talking

 

change is good, but change for the sake of change is not

and if you followed what I said, and clearly you didn't, I have nothing against "robot cars" driving on their own roads

[moderategamer]

Don't trust them this is how it starts we start giving them controll over daily aspects of our life then they become self aware and realise they don't need to take that shit anymore next thing you know the cylons have taken over sending us back to the dark ages. Fracking toasters !

[MorganO]

i would trust teslas 'autopilot' FEATURES

but then again have a massive thing for teslas and elon musk :3

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

i would trust Tesla's 'autopilot' FEATURES

so did Joshua Brown, now he's dead

[MorganO]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

so did Joshua Brown, now he's dead

selectively cherry picking my quote, next quote the whole thing since it is relevent to what i said

 

tbh he should have seen the truck and slowed down but hey thats my opinion

 

 

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

selectively cherry picking my quote, next quote the whole thing since it is relevent to what i said

 

tbh he should have seen the truck and slowed down but hey thats my opinion

he wasn't driving, the car was on auto and he trusted it - that's the whole point, the autonomous caf failed and killed him

 

as for Musk ... I wonder why Tesla wasn't at least under scrutiny if not indicted for supplying a faulty product