Would you trust a computer with your life? Apple Car reportedly to have no steering wheel or pedals.

[mr moose]

When someone dies on the road, we normally call it an accident.  That is, it was an unfortunate event that took place due to human frailty.   Quite often when there is a pedestrian killed due to an unavoidable road event (tree falling), we do not blame the driver.  Again because of human frailty.  Once you have a car that is capable of calculating the best outcome and it chooses a path that results in the death of a pedestrian,  you then have a device designed to kill if necessary.  That is a legal nightmare. 

 

I don't know where AI cars are going to end up, I don't know if humans are capable of developing an entire product set that puts humans first,  but if they start creating laws that make AI makers immune from legal repercussions then we will be going down a scary path.

 

 

 

 

[Sauron]

On 11/19/2021 at 5:32 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Even on the FSD beta (which does have it's many many faults), I've seen a couple instances of someone who was questioning why the car was stopping only to see that there was a pedestrian that they hadn't noticed (or similar cases).

That's likely because they weren't paying much attention, since they weren't the ones actually driving. By the way, stopping for pedestrians can be implemented and enforced without requiring the car to drive completely by itself.

On 11/19/2021 at 5:32 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Alluding to the fact that "humans" writing the software is a bigger truism, and misleading.

How so? A system is only as good as you make it. I won't say it's impossible to make something that is safer than the average human driver, I just don't think we're guaranteed to get that as new car models and updates are continuously churned out and have to interact with other cars exhibiting potentially different behavior. The idea that computers and software are necessarily going to be better than humans at any given task just because they can do some things faster is, at the very least, misguided.

 

-edit-

speak of the devil...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/20/tesla-app-outage-elon-musk-apologises

[Heliian]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

When someone dies on the road, we normally call it an accident

"Collision" is being used more often now for liability purposes. 

 

Liability is the big issue that really hasn't been solved yet.  

 

 

[AndreiArgeanu]

It isn't much of a surprise, even car manufacturers other than Tesla have pushed for this for a long while, a good example would be Renault with their Symbioz back in 2017, I mean they even had a VR headset you could wear while the car was driving itself, though it was a concept car.

Regardless I highly doubt that this car will release any time soon since Level 5 of Autonomy is extremely difficult and I do not believe there is a car yet out there that has that level of autonomy. The highest level of autonomy I've ever seen a car have is Level 4 and that was the Renault Symbioz which isn't a vehicle that is or was available to any consumer, mind you, Tesla vehicles which are widely available to consumers only have a SAE classification of Level 2.

Here's a chart for the levels of automation to get an idea of what I mean.

[MultiGamerClub]

3 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

tesla: yes, and we are going to reduce the price but remove safety features like cross checking important safety measures. if you die, then you should have read the EULA and buyed the more expensive version.

I have my doubts that will work in norway, but whatever gives you empowered feelings for hating on tesla, you do you.

 

I drive a diesel and im just thankful for the systems in place in my volvo. I wouldnt mind auto drive, ive seen the assistance do wonders already now.

Auto drive needs a more fine-tuning when lane-splits or maintence lanes come into play.. Seen tesla not handling those so well.

[poochyena]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Once you have a car that is capable of calculating the best outcome and it chooses a path that results in the death of a pedestrian,  you then have a device designed to kill if necessary.  That is a legal nightmare. 

How is that a legal nightmare? If someone designs a car to run over pedestrians, its very obviously the car (or software) manufacture's fault.

[Arika]

I love how people are replying with "well company x is doing this too" and yet all of those cars still have a STEERING WHEEL AND PEDALS.

 

16 minutes ago, poochyena said:

How is that a legal nightmare? If someone designs a car to run over pedestrians, its very obviously the car (or software) manufacture's fault.

 

It's the normal AI driving thought experiment.

 

Situation 1

Car: 1 occupant

Pedestrians x2

 

Pedestrians are crossing the road at a crossing. The only way to avoid hitting and killing the pedestrians is if the car diverts into a tress and kills the occupant.

Is the car that the occupant bought and owns, going to sacrifice the life of the owner to achieve a lesser loss of life, or is it going to kill the pedestrians who are crossing the road to save the owner?

 

Situation 2

Exactly the same as the above, except the pedestrians were crossing the road illegally and without looking.

 

 

then going further into the same stuff as above, does ages of the occupants or pedestrians change the decision? Say the pedestrians were elderly and the occupant was a young pregnant woman

 

 

you're essentially asking the AI to decide the outcome of the trolley problem.

 

In fact, here's a great website where you can try and make the same decisions you're asking the AI to make.

https://www.moralmachine.net/

click on "start judging" and you'll see why i have such a huge issue with self driving cars that have no manual control. I'm not putting my life in the hands of an algorithm.

[Spotty]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I love how people are replying with "well company x is doing this too" and yet all of those cars still have a STEERING WHEEL AND PEDALS.

 

 

It's the normal AI driving thought experiment.

 

Situation 1

Car: 1 occupant

Pedestrians x2

 

Pedestrians are crossing the road at a crossing. The only way to avoid hitting and killing the pedestrians is if the car diverts into a tress and kills the occupant.

Is the car that the occupant bought and owns, going to sacrifice the life of the owner to achieve a lesser loss of life, or is it going to kill the pedestrians who are crossing the road to save the owner?

 

Situation 2

Exactly the same as the above, except the pedestrians were crossing the road illegally and without looking.

 

 

then going further into the same stuff as above, does ages of the occupants or pedestrians change the decision? Say the pedestrians were elderly and the occupant was a young pregnant woman

 

 

you're essentially asking the AI to decide the outcome of the trolley problem.

 

In fact, here's a great website where you can try and make the same decisions you're asking the AI to make.

https://www.moralmachine.net/

click on "start judging" and you'll see why i have such a huge issue with self driving cars that have no manual control. I'm not putting my life in the hands of an algorithm.

That argument comes up every time and I think it's unfair. Why is crashing in to pedestrians or swerving off a cliff the only two options? Why not do what a normal person would do and just brake. If you don't have time to brake then the car is traveling too fast for the road or conditions, which self driving cars shouldn't be doing anyway as they'll be following the speed limit.

 

I just did that moral machine thing and in every test it was a vehicle approaching a pedestrian crossing where the only options are driving in to pedestrians crossing the road or swerving in to another group of pedestrians or a wall. If they're in an area with pedestrian crossings the speed limit should be slow (generally 50km/h or lower). Should have plenty of time to brake to avoid killing people. 

How often are you driving down the street, see people at a pedestrian crossing and think "do I swerve and drive in to a brick wall or do I run these people over"? Or do you just slow down and come to a stop to allow people to cross safely.

[Arika]

10 minutes ago, Spotty said:

That argument comes up every time and I think it's unfair. Why is crashing in to pedestrians or swerving off a cliff the only two options? Why not do what a normal person would do and just brake. If you don't have time to brake then the car is traveling too fast for the road or conditions, which self driving cars shouldn't be doing anyway as they'll be following the speed limit.

 

I just did that moral machine thing and in every test it was a vehicle approaching a pedestrian crossing where the only options are driving in to pedestrians crossing the road or swerving in to another group of pedestrians or a wall. If they're in an area with pedestrian crossings the speed limit should be slow (generally 50km/h or lower). Should have plenty of time to brake to avoid killing people. 

How often are you driving down the street, see people at a pedestrian crossing and think "do I swerve and drive in to a brick wall or do I run these people over"? Or do you just slow down and come to a stop to allow people to cross safely.

That's the entire point of the thought experiment, it's either one or the other. Yes, ideally the car does attempt to stop, but not every circumstance is going to allow you to stop, just like if you were in control of the car.

In Moral Machine, the explanation in all of them is that the car suffered sudden brake failure, so stopping isn't possible, but that's why it's a thought experiment, it removes variables and gives you the raw choice. The same choice that you're leaving to the hands of an AI which may or may not have your best interests in mind, it comes down to the morals of the programmers as to what happens to you.

[poochyena]

42 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Pedestrians are crossing the road at a crossing. The only way to avoid hitting and killing the pedestrians is if the car diverts into a tress and kills the occupant.

or.. you know, press the brakes.

16 minutes ago, Arika S said:

In Moral Machine, the explanation in all of them is that the car suffered sudden brake failure, so stopping isn't possible

yes, that common occurrence of undetected sudden brake failure /s

 

An actual realistic scenerio would be deer jumping out from the woods into the road, which is a common experience in my area, but even then its not "hit the deer or swerve into a tree". Know what? Here, i'll show you two instances of me driving and an animals jumping onto the road while I drove at ~50mph

 

Now, in the 2nd video I swerved some to make sure I didn't hit it with my tire, which I didn't, but you can see in neither video was it some life or death decision I had to make. I just... applied my breaks and swerved slightly as I needed. There is plenty of space, roads are designed to have extra room on the side of the road to pull over into. The scenerio you created is just completely absent of reality. This DID make me curious how cars deal with animals though, especially smaller animals like squirrels and rabbits and such. What is the smallest moving object most cars can detect?

[Quackers101]

1 hour ago, MultiGamerClub said:

I have my doubts that will work in norway, but whatever gives you empowered feelings for hating on tesla, you do you.

 

I drive a diesel and im just thankful for the systems in place in my volvo. I wouldnt mind auto drive, ive seen the assistance do wonders already now.

Auto drive needs a more fine-tuning when lane-splits or maintence lanes come into play.. Seen tesla not handling those so well.

the cars can work in EU countries, but of course it needs some training which it already gets from the teslas bought in the EU.

But I do got to say, some of the more complex electric cars have failed a bit, like buggy software or the mechanics not allowed to "repair".

While some of the cheaper with lower technical assistance, much easier to repair and works well, also not some cheaped out parts either that I heard was on some of the more expensive ones. like a broken plastic bit that DISABLED the charging which had to be replaced, making one stuck with an expensive paper weight.

or if something would go wrong under updating.

 

I dislike tesla for various reasons, they cutting out safety features without telling their customers and paying the same price, not being talked about much in the bad production features just like when Marques Brownlee noticed in his test drive of a tesla model. with other reports of leaking from the windows, damages or bumps to their chassie from production and various other cheaping out elements while pushing for subscription like other car brands wants to do too. like heating in seats etc, tesla the dodgy apple of cars. At least apple can give something that seems like quality.

[Arika]

5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

or.. you know, press the brakes.

 

yes, that common occurrence of undetected sudden brake failure /s

That's the point of a thought experiment, jesus christ.

some of the most well known ones can be written of as being unrealistic, but that doesn't diminish the entire point of thinking about them.

[poochyena]

37 minutes ago, Arika S said:

some of the most well known ones can be written of as being unrealistic, but that doesn't diminish the entire point of thinking about them.

Whats exactly was the point of you bringing it up?

[Biohazard777]

30 minutes ago, Arika S said:

That's the point of a thought experiment, jesus christ.

some of the most well known ones can be written of as being unrealistic, but that doesn't diminish the entire point of thinking about them.

Ok

21 hours ago, Arika S said:

... i'm not putting my life in the hands of an AI that might end up deciding to kill me if there's a situation where it's either me or multiple people...

So you are perfectly fine with killing multiple people as long as you don't die, that is the choice you'd make?

As a side question, do you drive, if so  - how often / what is your driving experience?

 

[MultiGamerClub]

1 hour ago, Quackers101 said:

the mechanics not allowed to "repair".

Seen this, it really sucks.

 

1 hour ago, Quackers101 said:

reports of leaking from the windows

Also seen a couple of videos about this, not looking good.. Tesla didnt even solve the issue, just "popped a hole" and called it a day.

[it_dont_work]

Serious question, how the fuck do I drop a trailer load of horse shit at the back of my farm with a L5 car, do I need to program a custom route each time?

 

A steering wheel and manual overide just seems more efficient sometimes  

[Arika]

19 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

So you are perfectly fine with killing multiple people as long as you don't die, that is the choice you'd make?

If that's what my reaction comes to, because it's not something that you would generally have the time to think about in the situations listed above, that's something i should have to live with, not saying "ok AI, go nuts, figure it out for me!". i'm not going to actively think "yeah fuck these people, go car, plow through them"

 

19 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

As a side question, do you drive, if so  - how often / what is your driving experience?

Yes i do drive, i've been driving for 12 years, cities, rural roads, pre-covid i drove every weekday to work which is about a 35 minute drive. I know what my driving skills are and what my car is capable of.

 

 

21 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Whats exactly was the point of you bringing it up?

are you serious? do you not understand the point of a thought experiment?

[poochyena]

4 minutes ago, Arika S said:

are you serious? do you not understand the point of a thought experiment?

Yes. I asked you what exactly the point was of you bringing it up here.

[Arika]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

Yes. I asked you what exactly the point was of you bringing it up here.

Because i'm talking about the potential real world consequences of self driving cars that you have zero control over and the thought experiment i provided is something that should be considered which talking about a car without any user control. regardless of how "realistic" the situation is, it is still something that people should think about.

 

If you're content in being in a car that decides everything for you with no regard for itself (because it's an algorithm, it doesn't care for self preservation), then more power to you, as long as you're aware of all the implications, but for me personally, i wouldn't be caught dead in such a car, regardless of who makes it.

[Quackers101]

34 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

So you are perfectly fine with killing multiple people as long as you don't die, that is the choice you'd make?

As a side question, do you drive, if so  - how often / what is your driving experience?

to be fair, we as people are "perfectly fine in doing so". which is one of my scary thoughts when driving, everyone wants to drive faster to get home quicker.

Spoiler

So a lot of deaths in corners that has no visibility becomes a big problem. when people and even teachers say "drive with the flow" when they drive too fast... but to my mind, everyone are driving too fast and becoming too unsafe if you need to stop. We are selfish creatures, but if I could make the choice or tell it to the AI, then I would likely put others before me. if they are someone not in a vehicle. since I "could" be more protected by the car itself. but again would want a way to stop it for ever reaching that point. not some rogue car or program that endangers me and the public.

but would agree with Arika that no control over it, seems like a bad choice. could work if its never going to such risks. but else, no, would need some emergency solution.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Quackers101

[poochyena]

12 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Because i'm talking about the potential real world consequences of self driving cars

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

That's the point of a thought experiment, jesus christ.

some of the most well known ones can be written of as being unrealistic, but that doesn't diminish the entire point of thinking about them.

So let me get this straight, you think that these scenerios are both "potential real world consequences of self driving cars" AND "unrealistic"?

So which is it? Are your thought experiments realistic or unrealistic? If realistic, then why dd you say they are "written of as being unrealistic"? If unrealistic, then why bring it up?

[Jtalk4456]

I like them pushing self driving tech, but there should always be a backup. This is a big no go for me

[Arika]

29 minutes ago, poochyena said:

So let me get this straight, you think that these scenerios are both "potential real world consequences of self driving cars" AND "unrealistic"?

So which is it? Are your thought experiments realistic or unrealistic? If realistic, then why dd you say they are "written of as being unrealistic"? If unrealistic, then why bring it up?

so you don't understand the point of a thought experiment then.

 

they are designed to get you thinking. some of them are exaggerated, some are unrealistic, some are plausible, but the most well known ones can be written off as being unrealistic, doesn't mean ALL of them are, and doesn't mean it shouldn't be something that is thought about.

 

I'm not saying the self driving car decisions are unrealistic, they most certainly are plausible and something that will absolutely need to be thought about when creating the programming that goes into them.

 

the most well known ones:

The trolley problem: unrealistic, but still a moral choice

The ticking time bomb: unrealistic for most people, plausible for others in certain fields

The ship of Theseus: just a thought experiment, neither realistic or unrealistic

Monkeys and typewriters: unrealistic

Brain in the vat: unrealistic

Shrodingers Cat: unrealistic

The Chinese room: unrealistic

Galileo's gravity experiment: actually real

Einsteins's light beam: unrealistic

The cow in the field: general thought experiment.

 

 

I'm not sure the point you're trying to get at by trying to catch me in some contradiction.

my entire point:

Self-driving cars with manual control: fine

Self-driving cars with no manual control: extremely off-putting

[poochyena]

13 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I'm not saying the self driving car decisions are unrealistic, they most certainly are plausible

then why did you respond to me retort with "some of the most well known ones can be written of as being unrealistic, but that doesn't diminish the entire point of thinking about them. "? If what you said you believe is plausible, then why tell me that some thought experiments are unrealistic?

How do you respond to my comment denying your thought experiment to be pausible?

16 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Self-driving cars with no manual control: extremely off-putting

why?

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

then why did you respond to me retort with "some of the most well known ones can be written of as being unrealistic, but that doesn't diminish the entire point of thinking about them. "? If what you said you believe is plausible, then why tell me that some thought experiments are unrealistic?

How do you respond to my comment denying your thought experiment to be pausible?

 

Now we're just going around in circles. i'm not going to repeat myself

 

Quote

why?

read literally all of my previous replies.