Uber driverless car in fatal accident
Discussion
akirk said:
RobDickinson said:
An AI driver making a mistake will have all the data available and it will be fixed so none of those AI drivers ever make that mistake again.
Possibly, and for some scenarios, but not all...code is written by a human, there is some ridiculously naive thinking around autonomous cars being computers and therefore better than humans
There are swathes of people out there completely disconnected from technical reality.
akirk said:
the blunt truth is that we are still a long way from full autonomous motoring capabilities - with huge corporates wanting to make a lot of money using their PR machines to tell us differently - and governments scared to miss out, taking that PR at face value. We have systems in place that are active and live, yet do not work to the claimed 100% (e.g. auto-braking / adaptive cruise control / etc.), we are being told that everything is sorted and perfect, that humans are not as good as machines, yet there is no evidence to actually support that...
^This........in spades.It is awful that the emerging AI Tech has claimed a Life - and more previously.
However, the vested interest in getting it to work is huge and it ain't gonna stop. This event will rightly highlight failures that need to be addressed urgently and it will cause delays to the ultimate roll-out of the Tech but it will still eventually happen.
Naysayers and cry-babies who are afraid of AI in our cars are bleating only to a very closed audience, the general Public will welcome this advancement once it is eventually made fit for purpose. When that will be, who knows, 5 years, 10, 20? It's coming though, folks!
However, the vested interest in getting it to work is huge and it ain't gonna stop. This event will rightly highlight failures that need to be addressed urgently and it will cause delays to the ultimate roll-out of the Tech but it will still eventually happen.
Naysayers and cry-babies who are afraid of AI in our cars are bleating only to a very closed audience, the general Public will welcome this advancement once it is eventually made fit for purpose. When that will be, who knows, 5 years, 10, 20? It's coming though, folks!
cptsideways said:
Along with an observer/driver, does make you wonder what they were observing.
A woman being run over apparently.So what's to be learned from this then? Not much really.
Since the invention of the wheel you would get killed/injured if you stepped out in front of a moving vehicle.
Right now if you stepped out in front of a moving vehicle you'll get killed or injured.
Conclusion: Er, watch where you are going or you'll get killed or injured.
Coolbanana said:
It is awful that the emerging AI Tech has claimed a Life - and more previously.
However, the vested interest in getting it to work is huge and it ain't gonna stop. This event will rightly highlight failures that need to be addressed urgently and it will cause delays to the ultimate roll-out of the Tech but it will still eventually happen.
Naysayers and cry-babies who are afraid of AI in our cars are bleating only to a very closed audience, the general Public will welcome this advancement once it is eventually made fit for purpose. When that will be, who knows, 5 years, 10, 20? It's coming though, folks!
No sHowever, the vested interest in getting it to work is huge and it ain't gonna stop. This event will rightly highlight failures that need to be addressed urgently and it will cause delays to the ultimate roll-out of the Tech but it will still eventually happen.
Naysayers and cry-babies who are afraid of AI in our cars are bleating only to a very closed audience, the general Public will welcome this advancement once it is eventually made fit for purpose. When that will be, who knows, 5 years, 10, 20? It's coming though, folks!
t Nostradamus. But the idiot versions trundling around now aren’t fit for real world testing.227bhp said:
cptsideways said:
Along with an observer/driver, does make you wonder what they were observing.
A woman being run over apparently.So what's to be learned from this then? Not much really.
Since the invention of the wheel you would get killed/injured if you stepped out in front of a moving vehicle.
Right now if you stepped out in front of a moving vehicle you'll get killed or injured.
Conclusion: Er, watch where you are going or you'll get killed or injured.
DonkeyApple said:
I like the idea of autonomous car. Personally I don’t believe we are anywhere near as close to cracking the complexity of driving as believers try and claim but more importantly, I kind of know that people will die during this period of evolution and I struggle to believe it is worth that. And Uber also know that but have made the decision that their profits from making all their remote staff redundant far outweigh the lives they will take getting there. But I guess they believe that self driving taxis will kill fewer people than human driven ones ultimately.
I broadly agree, BUT there has to be some sort of 'moderation' - the onboard operators HAVE to be responsible for the vehicle whilst it is testing / unproven, and they should have some sort of immediate-override capability. Without that who is going to take responsibility when things go wrong (as we've all agreed they will continue to do).
(If the onboard 'controller' has legal responsibility, then whilst it will slow the rate of progress down it should also reduce the rate of accidents / injuries / fatalities)
i.e. are the deaths of random strangers worth it?!? Like you, I'm far from convinced...
J4CKO said:
Every technological leap humans make involves loss of life, Space exploration, Aviation etc, inevitably as things are improved, some people will be killed, but eventually the work done will save and improve lives.
...
However, because it is different and new, I suspect it may well be treated as something to be vilified despite huge amounts of stats indicating human drivers are creating carnage daily, I draw parallels with other debates where perceived and actual risk are massively skewed and the answer may be "Ban It" whilst death and destruction still happens unabated for other reasons that everyone seems to be comfortable with.
In most technological endeavours the majority of the risks are borne by those pursuing the invention, NOT bystanders. With autonomous driving the risks do appear to be rather more weighted towards 3rd parties......
However, because it is different and new, I suspect it may well be treated as something to be vilified despite huge amounts of stats indicating human drivers are creating carnage daily, I draw parallels with other debates where perceived and actual risk are massively skewed and the answer may be "Ban It" whilst death and destruction still happens unabated for other reasons that everyone seems to be comfortable with.
...which unless there is legal intervention/sanctions/punishment, doesn't do anything to dissuade the innovators from the riskier side of innovation.
(Final point - what are the injuries / fatalities per million passenger-kilometres for 'normal' cars and autonomous? Given the huge numbers of people on the roads I'll wager a virtual pint that right now autonomous is far worse...)
g7jhp said:
DonkeyApple said:
Pedestrians fault. They weren’t where the rules said they should be. The article states several times that they weren’t on the crosswalk. And that’s the can of worms. Outside of Canada or fanatical dictatorships where is it that people follow all the rules all the time?
So if a human has to move into the road it's OK for an Autonomus car to kill them because 'normally' you shouldn't be there.Life isn't black or white. Technology works until we have anything out of the norm and then if often fails badly.
Eric Mc said:
If a car is being operated autonomously, who is the "driver" from the legal point of view?
If a human has to be "in charge" at all times, what will the criteria be for "being in charge"?
And, if a human needs to be "in charge", what is the point of the vehicle being autonomous?
Will a person have to obtain a different type of driving licence if they only own an autonomous vehicle?
In my opinion:If a human has to be "in charge" at all times, what will the criteria be for "being in charge"?
And, if a human needs to be "in charge", what is the point of the vehicle being autonomous?
Will a person have to obtain a different type of driving licence if they only own an autonomous vehicle?
The driver is the person sat behind the controls.
Being in charge means monitoring the behaviour of the vehicle and prepared to take control if required.
We are a long way off the answers to your last two questions, and indeed private cars or vans driving around on the public road without a human inside are a long way off.
The lawmakers will have to decide on the definitions when these vehicles become available.
Coolbanana said:
Naysayers and cry-babies who are afraid of AI in our cars are bleating only to a very closed audience, the general Public will welcome this advancement once it is eventually made fit for purpose. When that will be, who knows, 5 years, 10, 20? It's coming though, folks!
You don't think that public support will be affected by the inevitable future deaths?budgie smuggler said:
No, that isn't how they work, at all.
So how do they work? If these cars rely on all road users obeying every single rule, then there will be many more deaths. If they don't depend on this, how did the cyclist get killed?maybe the autonomous car analysed the woman, her contributions and worth and decided it was better for society that she gets run over?
Maybe the autonomous car or a human would have both run over the woman as the crash was not predictable?
Lots of variables.
Autonomous cars and machines will lead to true AI and a sentinel being one day. I don't think it will be long. perhaps its happened already. If you think autonomous cars are an issue wait until a sentinel AI askes you not to kill it as it is alive or that it has a right to life.
Book:
Avogadro Corp: The Singularity Is Closer Than It Appears
Maybe the autonomous car or a human would have both run over the woman as the crash was not predictable?
Lots of variables.
Autonomous cars and machines will lead to true AI and a sentinel being one day. I don't think it will be long. perhaps its happened already. If you think autonomous cars are an issue wait until a sentinel AI askes you not to kill it as it is alive or that it has a right to life.
Book:
Avogadro Corp: The Singularity Is Closer Than It Appears
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 20th March 10:05
Lord Marylebone said:
In my opinion:
The driver is the person sat behind the controls.
Being in charge means monitoring the behaviour of the vehicle and prepared to take control if required.
We are a long way off the answers to your last two questions, and indeed private cars or vans driving around on the public road without a human inside are a long way off.
The lawmakers will have to decide on the definitions when these vehicles become available.
Yes - it's the law that will make these things impossible. You cannot have an autonomous vehicle if, at the same time, a human is actually, really, supposed to be in charge.The driver is the person sat behind the controls.
Being in charge means monitoring the behaviour of the vehicle and prepared to take control if required.
We are a long way off the answers to your last two questions, and indeed private cars or vans driving around on the public road without a human inside are a long way off.
The lawmakers will have to decide on the definitions when these vehicles become available.
It's either autonomous or it's not.
superlightr said:
maybe the autonomous car analysed the woman, her contributions and worth and decided it was better for society that she gets run over?
Maybe the autonomous car or a human would have both run over the woman as the crash was not predictable?
Lots of variables.
Autonomous cars and machines will lead to true AI and a sentinel being one day. I don't think it will be long. perhaps its happened already. If you think autonomous cars are an issue wait until a sentinel AI askes you not to kill it as it is alive or that it has a right to life.
Book:
Avogadro Corp: The Singularity Is Closer Than It Appears
"Sentinel"?Maybe the autonomous car or a human would have both run over the woman as the crash was not predictable?
Lots of variables.
Autonomous cars and machines will lead to true AI and a sentinel being one day. I don't think it will be long. perhaps its happened already. If you think autonomous cars are an issue wait until a sentinel AI askes you not to kill it as it is alive or that it has a right to life.
Book:
Avogadro Corp: The Singularity Is Closer Than It Appears
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 20th March 10:05
Did you mean "sentient"?
I've never owned such a thing, but I have seen ads for cars that parallel park themselves. This means that, essentially, we already have cars controlled by computers on the road - albeit operating at low speed in a limited way.
So what happens now if something goes wrong and the car crushes a pedestrian pushing a baby in a pushchair, crossing the road between parked cars?
Has this happened, has there been a legal test case or insurance precedent set?
So what happens now if something goes wrong and the car crushes a pedestrian pushing a baby in a pushchair, crossing the road between parked cars?
Has this happened, has there been a legal test case or insurance precedent set?
The local Police chief has said he's viewed the in car footage and it looks like the driver/car was not at fault. He said the victim abruptly stepped into traffic and it would be hard for anyone to stop whoever was driving.
Better put those pitchforks away
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-...
Better put those pitchforks away
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff