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

[Bitter]

22 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Not on my life. Wasn't really interested, but most definitely not interested now.

Also not without completely re-writing motor vehicle regulations in the United States. Hell, we can't even adopt ECE lighting standards that basically the whole rest of the world uses because there's too much political 'hide the sausage' going on behind the scenes I cannot fathom this kind of monumental change happening anytime soon and by anytime soon I mean in the next 50 years. Manual controls will continue to be a thing, and physically connected manual controls will continue to be a thing.

[poochyena]

28 minutes ago, Arika S said:

read literally all of my previous replies.

You didn't actually explain, you just responded by saying thought experiments are usually unrealstic, and the later clarified you believe yours was plausible. I'm asking why you think that is so in light of the facts I brought up.

[mr moose]

2 hours 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?

You clearly don't understand the reason behind thought experiments. You seem to be stuck with the concept that a situation will not arise where AI will make a decision based on programing that results in death. 

 

The whole point of a thought experiment is not to predict the likelihood of a situation but to elicit consideration of how a specific situation should be handled.    Pretending it won't happen is akin to putting your head in the sand and hoping bad things never happen.

[poochyena]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but to elicit consideration of how a specific situation should be handled.   

What exactly is the point of doing that in this thread if that situation is unrealistic? It doesn't apply here.

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Pretending it won't happen

I'm not pretending, i'm explaining specifically why it won't.

[Biohazard777]

3 hours ago, Arika S said:

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"

Kinda unfair to criticize others for saying it is unrealistic / things never play out like that and then get to find an excuse for your decision (time constraint) . As if time made that decision for you, not your own decision. Sure you'd live with it and own that decision, but it is kinda downplayed, best you could do in time given.
Let's completely eliminate time as a factor, before you even get to sit in the car you have a choice:
- enable AI that will choose to save multiple jaywalkers but at the expense of the driver's life if need be.
- disable the AI, in which case the driver is left with manual controls and the driver certainly ends up killing several jaywalkers if that "need be" situation arises, but the driver lives.
 

3 hours ago, Arika S said:

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.

Similar to mine (I've got a few more years, but that is irrelevant).
So have you been in an accident or a very hairy situation (not talking about fender benders)? Just asking because you've mentioned time constraint as being an important factor as to what your decision would end up like, but from my own experience time wasn't a factor in the hairiest of situations. For me as if time slowed down each time, I got to run though my options in my head (more like summaries, not full blown plans, but enough to make a decision and commit to it). I know this is probably something that isn't the same for every person out there, just curious if your experience in those dangerous situations is different than mine. 

PS I am not calling you out, discrediting or something like that, I genuinely like to to converse with you and hear your point of view .

[Jito463]

Not only would I not ride in a fully automated vehicle, I don't even like to drive a car with an automatic transmission.  Give me manual transmission and full control any day.  Unless the vehicle is literally on a rail that can only go either forward or backward, I would not rely any man made program to control it over my own abilities.

[Arika]

26 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Let's completely eliminate time as a factor, before you even get to sit in the car you have a choice:
- enable AI that will choose to save multiple jaywalkers but at the expense of the driver's life if need be.
- disable the AI, in which case the driver is left with manual controls and the driver certainly ends up killing several jaywalkers if that "need be" situation arises, but the driver lives.

You don't get that choice in a car with no steering wheel and no pedals. Are people just completely ignoring the main point of this article?

 

I've said a few times now i'm not against self driving cars, i'm against self driving being the ONLY way the car works.

 

27 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

So have you been in an accident or a very hairy situation (not talking about fender benders)? Just asking because you've mentioned time constraint as being an important factor as to what your decision would end up like, but from my own experience time wasn't a factor in the hairiest of situations.

Yes actually, i was involved in a head-on accident that i should not have survived, and there was nothing i could do about it, literally nothing, it was that quick. the only thing that went through my mind was "this is it". i didn't drive for 8 months after that happened. So i know full well what it's like and it's also why i don't want my car making decisions for me. And no, a self driving car would not have protected me at all.

[Biohazard777]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

You don't get that choice in a car with no steering wheel and no pedals. Are people just completely ignoring the main point of this article?

I am not missing anything, and I am trying to have a polite conversation with you, I am not agitating you (at least that is not my intent).
That is exactly the choice I asked you to make, before you even sit in a car would you enable or disable the AI that saves jaywalkers but kills your if that is necessary... So by buying an Apple car you make that AI choice, by buying a regular car you opt for the manual mode choice. You can own both cars and make that choice on a daily basis if you'd like.

 

BTW I didn't say I am for AI driven cars (in any shape or form on public roads), at least not yet... we ain't there yet and it might take another decade before we are there.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, poochyena said:

What exactly is the point of doing that in this thread if that situation is unrealistic? It doesn't apply here.

I'm not pretending, i'm explaining specifically why it won't.

It certainly applies, that is the whole point of thought experiments, they force us to consider possible situations and outcomes that we normally wouldn't.  They are like the murphy's laws for the fall out of such technology.   You simply cannot claim neither of the offered scenarios is going to happen.  Law of averages says the probability for a fatal dichotomy involving AI decision making will occur.  If we do not prepare and plan for how that should look and be dealt with then we are literally pointing a gun into a crowd, firing once and claiming the odds of killing someone is not important.

 

2 hours ago, Biohazard777 said:

I am not missing anything, and I am trying to have a polite conversation with you, I am not agitating you (at least that is not my intent).
That is exactly the choice I asked you to make, before you even sit in a car would you enable or disable the AI that saves jaywalkers but kills your if that is necessary... So by buying an Apple car you make that AI choice, by buying a regular car you opt for the manual mode choice. You can own both cars and make that choice on a daily basis if you'd like.

 

BTW I didn't say I am for AI driven cars (in any shape or form on public roads), at least not yet... we ain't there yet and it might take another decade before we are there.

The problem here is if you can select who should die in the event of an uncontrollable incident then you introduce more liability.   When someone dies how long is the legal system tied up with lawsuits trying to determine who is responsible?   The maker for giving you the option? the driver for selecting it? the pedestrian for being a pedestrian? the technologist who wrote the confusing manual? the dealer for not properly explaining how the system works? or the council for changed road conditions the AI couldn't negotiate?      Too many factors that we are just not ready for.

[jagdtigger]

12 hours ago, Spotty said:

If you don't have time to brake then the car is traveling too fast for the road or conditions

Geez talking about being unfair. Like things appearing from behind covering objects within your breaking distance isnt a thing...... (or ppl ignoring rules and entering crossing without looking, etc)

[poochyena]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

It certainly applies, that is the whole point of thought experiments, they force us to consider possible situations and outcomes that we normally wouldn't. 

Yes. I considered the possible situations and outcomes and determined its unrealistic.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

You simply cannot claim neither of the offered scenarios is going to happen. 

I can, and I did.

[CarlBar]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Geez talking about being unfair. Like things appearing from behind covering objects within your breaking distance isnt a thing...... (or ppl ignoring rules and entering crossing without looking, etc)

 

This. Also somtimes the layout and arrangement of roads isn't ideal. I can think of a half a dozen completely blind corners near me. And pretty much any stretch of road where your accelerating to a higher speed limit is going to have an accident if anyone brakes because the speed, (and thus stopping distance), increase much faster than separation distance does, (and staying slower in that situation to let distance increase is generally not legal either as your a danger by obstruction and/or failing to merge into another traffic stream properly if merging is happening at the same time).

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

Yes. I considered the possible situations and outcomes and determined its unrealistic.

I can, and I did.

 

As I said, your head is in the sand.   It is not impossible for an AI driven car to end up in the position where it has to choose between killing the occupant or killing a pedestrian. 

[Distinctly Average]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

As I said, your head is in the sand.   It is not impossible for an AI driven car to end up in the position where it has to choose between killing the occupant or killing a pedestrian. 

Then what happens if the AI has to choose from two groups of pedestrians? Does it pick the over 90s knitting club, or the yummy mummy’s natter group heading back to their 4wDs from the garden centre coffee morning with their sprogs? 
 

AI is great but still too far in its infancy. Now while it is probably less likely to get in a situation in the first place, I am not sure we have the technology for it not to be glitchy. We also have the question of the moral choices its programmer’s make, and to whom the guilt would ultimately end with should the worst happen.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

It is not impossible for an AI driven car to end up in the position where it has to choose between killing the occupant or killing a pedestrian. 

Then tell me an instances in which it could happen.

[sof006]

This car won't be road legal in the UK

[Forbidden Wafer]

Considering Apple made a bunch of people get into dangerous places/lost with their bugged Maps... I don't think this is a good idea.

[IAmAndre]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

Then tell me an instances in which it could happen.

I actually watched a video on the topic several years ago. Say you're on a highway, in the center line and there's a truck in front of you. Now say something big falls from that truck. That's an event the AI in the car can't predict, but it still has a few seconds to make a decision considering the speed the car is moving at and the surrounding. 

 

Unlike a human driver, this can't be considered an "accident" in a trial because whatever the car does, it's because it's been programmed/trained to act like this. There comes the cynical part. Should the car manage to save as many lives as possible, even if it means sacrificing some (i.e the driver)? If we go back to that situation on the highway, should it hit the motorcycle driver who's on the left rather the one who's on the right because the one on left is wearing a helmet and has therefore higher chances of survival? If it's a luxury car, should it assume that the person on the backseat is an important one and therefore do everything to save them? Who's going to decide what algorithms should be implemented? Car manufacturers? States?

 

PS: I just found the video:

 

 

[Donut417]

On 11/18/2021 at 10:58 PM, Arika S said:

Now, i don't know about everyone else, but I would not get in a car that i have zero control over.

Are there not cars that your drive by wire? Meaning steering is electronic and not mechanical? 

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Are there not cars that your drive by wire? Meaning steering is electronic and not mechanical? 

There are, and i also wouldn't buy a car like that either, in fact there was the 2016 Infiniti Q50 that had steer-by-wire originally but due to public outcry, they replaced it with traditional hydraulic steering.

 

I've seen enough demonstrations of "look, we hacked this car" to make me not want a car like that.

[poochyena]

52 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

I actually watched a video on the topic several years ago. Say you're on a highway, in the center line and there's a truck in front of you. Now say something big falls from that truck. That's an event the AI in the car can't predict, but it still has a few seconds to make a decision considering the speed the car is moving at and the surrounding. 

It would brake and swerve into an empty space. I don't understand how "swerve into object to avoid hitting this other object" is a sensible thing to program into a car. The car would also not be programmed to tailgate a large truck, so it would actually have enough space to brake enough to not cause significant damage. High traffic areas are also slower, making stopping even easier. A road is not going to have 3 lanes, be crowded, AND high speed (65mph+). Thats not how real world traffic works.

This video is mind numbingly stupid. "Which vehicle should the car swerve into?"

uhh, neither? Apply the brake and swerve into the empty space to the right. Even if there was a car there, in a world with AI cars, that car would see you braking and swerving into its lane and react by also braking and swerving to the right some.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, IAmAndre said:

Say you're on a highway, in the center line and there's a truck in front of you. Now say something big falls from that truck.

AI isn't going to drive like an Ass hole. AI will follow the recommend distance between vehicles that most people dont because they are tailgating because they dont believe in the speed limit. Thats the thing, the LAW will be so ingrained in to the AI that lots of accidents wont happen due to the average person being negligent when they drive because they dont have time management skills. 

[IAmAndre]

10 minutes ago, poochyena said:

It would brake and swerve into an empty space. I don't understand how "swerve into object to avoid hitting this other object" is a sensible thing to program into a car. The car would also not be programmed to tailgate a large truck, so it would actually have enough space to brake enough to not cause significant damage. High traffic areas are also slower, making stopping even easier. A road is not going to have 3 lanes, be crowded, AND high speed (65mph+). Thats not how real world traffic works.

This video is mind numbingly stupid. "Which vehicle should the car swerve into?"

uhh, neither? Apply the brake and swerve into the empty space to the right. Even if there was a car there, in a world with AI cars, that car would see you braking and swerving into its lane and react by also braking and swerving to the right some.

That's just an example. What if you are on a highway? If you brake suddenly you get hit by the car behind you and so on. And again the point is just having an event happening that the AI can't predict and there can be lots of them.

[IAmAndre]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

AI isn't going to drive like an Ass hole. AI will follow the recommend distance between vehicles that most people dont because they are tailgating because they dont believe in the speed limit. Thats the thing, the LAW will be so ingrained in to the AI that lots of accidents wont happen due to the average person being negligent when they drive because they dont have time management skills. 

The point stands. Regardless of the distance if something falls from the car I front of you, you still need to avoid it. And that's just an example. Anything unpredictable can happen on the road and the car would need to react.

[Donut417]

Just now, IAmAndre said:

The point stands. Regardless of the distance if something falls from the car I front of you, you still need to avoid it. And that's just an example. Anything unpredictable can happen on the road and the car would need to react.

My car has radar and if I get too close to anything it goes off. So I have no doubt that AI will be able to react in time. In the case of my car, it automatically will apply the breaks. AI would be able to swerve, and by doing the proper following distance it will have more time to make a decision. On top of that, there is likely cars will communicate between each other  meaning others might slow down in the other lane to offer you an escape route.