AI Confidential: Driverless Cars
Discussion
The first episode of this was interesting too but I focused on the second in my title as it was about cars.
The programme looked at two incidents that resulted in death in the US and the companies Uber and Tesla. I didnt think the programme was anti driverless cars at all and in fact, I think it showed that the presenter Hannah Fry is really into new technology. The programme also acknowledged that AI is developing all the time and the cars in the two incidents were clearly not the latest tech. But the main issue was the shared responsibility between the driver/occupant and the company responsible for the vehicle. Which in the two featured cases meant a court case where a massive company fought a single individual. The point in both cases seemed to be that shared responsibility was accepted but whether the car actually did what it was "supposed" to do and it was reasonable to expect it to do. In each case the car seemed to misinterpret what was ahead of it and hit something that would clearly be expected (by pretty much anyone) to avoid. So the programme was about the law as much as the tech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002r9c1/ai-...
Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
The programme looked at two incidents that resulted in death in the US and the companies Uber and Tesla. I didnt think the programme was anti driverless cars at all and in fact, I think it showed that the presenter Hannah Fry is really into new technology. The programme also acknowledged that AI is developing all the time and the cars in the two incidents were clearly not the latest tech. But the main issue was the shared responsibility between the driver/occupant and the company responsible for the vehicle. Which in the two featured cases meant a court case where a massive company fought a single individual. The point in both cases seemed to be that shared responsibility was accepted but whether the car actually did what it was "supposed" to do and it was reasonable to expect it to do. In each case the car seemed to misinterpret what was ahead of it and hit something that would clearly be expected (by pretty much anyone) to avoid. So the programme was about the law as much as the tech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002r9c1/ai-...
Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
I shall have to watch this. I find the subject fascinating and Hannah Fry is an exceptional presenter. There are a lot of people with deep knowledge and understanding of science, but very few that can portray it in an personable and charismatic manner.
Haven't managed to have a go in a driverless taxi yet, but my experience on the Vegas loop makes me concerned that the tech is not ready thus far!
Haven't managed to have a go in a driverless taxi yet, but my experience on the Vegas loop makes me concerned that the tech is not ready thus far!
CSR Performance said:
I shall have to watch this. I find the subject fascinating and Hannah Fry is an exceptional presenter. There are a lot of people with deep knowledge and understanding of science, but very few that can portray it in an personable and charismatic manner.
Haven't managed to have a go in a driverless taxi yet, but my experience on the Vegas loop makes me concerned that the tech is not ready thus far!
I think she's really good too. I have always thought of her as an academic but in the programme she mentions working for Google for 8 years. I've just looked that up and found that's as a consultant rather than as a full time job. I almost felt nervous on her behalf at the beginning of the programme when she first travels in a driverless car. I'm not even sure I could do that at all.Haven't managed to have a go in a driverless taxi yet, but my experience on the Vegas loop makes me concerned that the tech is not ready thus far!
With driverless cars it really is all about the legality and liability.
The Uber case where the pedestian got killed, was clearly Uber trying to throw the blame onto their employee. The task she was given was to supervise and monitor the operation of the car, not look out continuously for hazards. A pitch dark freeway at 45mph is frankly the last place you would expect to find a cyclist walking across the road, and there is nothing to say a human driver would have avoided them. In this case the car detected something 5.6 seconds before impact, but couldn't decide what is was so carried on, and repeated the process every few tenths of a second. The 'driver' appeared to be looking down at her phone, but should have been looking at the car's iPad control monitor - So that is not really relevant. Should she have been prosecuted? I don't know, but it looks ot me like she took the jail free conviction to make it go away having been dragged through investigation by Uber's lawyers for 5 years. Uber subsequently abandoned bulding driverless cars. Waymo seem to have a more robust solution - I don't know thier accident statistics, but thier issues seem to be more down to the cars being silly sometimes, rather than dangerous. I'd have a ride in one, given the chance - They are coming to London this year apparently, so thats going to be be interesting.
Lawmakers really have no idea how to legislate for this area.
Prof Fry, as ever was wonderful.
The Uber case where the pedestian got killed, was clearly Uber trying to throw the blame onto their employee. The task she was given was to supervise and monitor the operation of the car, not look out continuously for hazards. A pitch dark freeway at 45mph is frankly the last place you would expect to find a cyclist walking across the road, and there is nothing to say a human driver would have avoided them. In this case the car detected something 5.6 seconds before impact, but couldn't decide what is was so carried on, and repeated the process every few tenths of a second. The 'driver' appeared to be looking down at her phone, but should have been looking at the car's iPad control monitor - So that is not really relevant. Should she have been prosecuted? I don't know, but it looks ot me like she took the jail free conviction to make it go away having been dragged through investigation by Uber's lawyers for 5 years. Uber subsequently abandoned bulding driverless cars. Waymo seem to have a more robust solution - I don't know thier accident statistics, but thier issues seem to be more down to the cars being silly sometimes, rather than dangerous. I'd have a ride in one, given the chance - They are coming to London this year apparently, so thats going to be be interesting.
Lawmakers really have no idea how to legislate for this area.
Prof Fry, as ever was wonderful.
Terminator X said:
Just me perhaps but I'll never use them.
TX.
Lot's of indirect usage. for egTX.
booking a hire car which arrives at your remote airbnb.
going for a run and having your car meet you at the destination
driving to a locatio and sending the car back home for another family member to use
doing the school run
Perhaps you don't trust the tech, but that's a different issue.
As for liability, that's what insurance is for. There is huge variation in driver skills and insurance varies accordingly. The bar to drive legally is fairly low, really. You can crash loads of times and still drive. You just have to pay the insurance for it. So the cost of self-driving insurance will tell its own story.
Edited by lizardbrain on Tuesday 3rd March 11:55
Mobile toilet . Your well filled relief comes sloshing to a halt in front of you lol.
On a more serious note,big tech filled the market with ill vetted and trained operatives to hasten the road to driverless taxis?
I expect a luddite rebellion of vandalism will happen now and again like with the bikes blocking the place up everywhere.
Flaming cars steadily and dilligently arriving in front of a bemused customer.
On a more serious note,big tech filled the market with ill vetted and trained operatives to hasten the road to driverless taxis?
I expect a luddite rebellion of vandalism will happen now and again like with the bikes blocking the place up everywhere.
Flaming cars steadily and dilligently arriving in front of a bemused customer.
I downloaded the Waymo app about 7 or 8 weeks ago and tried to book a ride. All I could get was the opportunity to join the waiting list for my first trip. Yesterday they emailed me and told me I could now book my first ride. So it seems plenty of people are ready to use them.
Before it was even supposed to be available, almost exactly a year ago, I got a ride home in a Tesla Uber and the driver didn't touch the controls once. That was through downtown traffic. Very impressive.
Before it was even supposed to be available, almost exactly a year ago, I got a ride home in a Tesla Uber and the driver didn't touch the controls once. That was through downtown traffic. Very impressive.
hondajack85 said:
Mobile toilet . Your well filled relief comes sloshing to a halt in front of you lol.
On a more serious note,big tech filled the market with ill vetted and trained operatives to hasten the road to driverless taxis?
I expect a luddite rebellion of vandalism will happen now and again like with the bikes blocking the place up everywhere.
Flaming cars steadily and dilligently arriving in front of a bemused customer.
At one point in the programme they showed a group who protest by (it seemed) somehow sticking some tape over something on the car while it is stationary to effectively disable it. One point of their protest is (they said) the amount of time the cars spend driving around with no passenger. The programme was careful not to show what they actually did to the car but the claim is that it causes no lasting damage.On a more serious note,big tech filled the market with ill vetted and trained operatives to hasten the road to driverless taxis?
I expect a luddite rebellion of vandalism will happen now and again like with the bikes blocking the place up everywhere.
Flaming cars steadily and dilligently arriving in front of a bemused customer.
Randy Winkman said:
hondajack85 said:
Mobile toilet . Your well filled relief comes sloshing to a halt in front of you lol.
On a more serious note,big tech filled the market with ill vetted and trained operatives to hasten the road to driverless taxis?
I expect a luddite rebellion of vandalism will happen now and again like with the bikes blocking the place up everywhere.
Flaming cars steadily and dilligently arriving in front of a bemused customer.
At one point in the programme they showed a group who protest by (it seemed) somehow sticking some tape over something on the car while it is stationary to effectively disable it. One point of their protest is (they said) the amount of time the cars spend driving around with no passenger. The programme was careful not to show what they actually did to the car but the claim is that it causes no lasting damage.On a more serious note,big tech filled the market with ill vetted and trained operatives to hasten the road to driverless taxis?
I expect a luddite rebellion of vandalism will happen now and again like with the bikes blocking the place up everywhere.
Flaming cars steadily and dilligently arriving in front of a bemused customer.
I have a feeling some of the group may have been taxi/Uber drivers seeing their livlihoods disappearing...
Terminator X said:
Just me perhaps but I'll never use them.
TX.
Because you don't think they're safe or for other reasons?TX.
Waymo apparently has about 1 human injury per million miles driven. The average for human drivers is about 1.24 in the US, yet lots of people are far happier to get an an Uber than a self driving car.
RizzoTheRat said:
Terminator X said:
Just me perhaps but I'll never use them.
TX.
Because you don't think they're safe or for other reasons?TX.
Waymo apparently has about 1 human injury per million miles driven. The average for human drivers is about 1.24 in the US, yet lots of people are far happier to get an an Uber than a self driving car.
Randy Winkman said:
The first episode of this was interesting too but I focused on the second in my title as it was about cars.
Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
The concern for me is whether the tech is suitable for and will work in dense crowded narrow and twisty European streets Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
London is a million miles away from LA in terms of pedestrian, cycle, public transport usage and space for instance
I think I'll stick with a cabbie and his knowledge for a while and see what happens
Earthdweller said:
Randy Winkman said:
The first episode of this was interesting too but I focused on the second in my title as it was about cars.
Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
The concern for me is whether the tech is suitable for and will work in dense crowded narrow and twisty European streets Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
London is a million miles away from LA in terms of pedestrian, cycle, public transport usage and space for instance
I think I'll stick with a cabbie and his knowledge for a while and see what happens
At the risk of mixing up two topics, like the person hit by another car when broken down in the outside lane of a motorway, I dont want to see someone pay the ultimate price for a bad decision if it can be avoided. People should do their best to cross the road safely but technology shouldn't punish them if they dont.
Terminator X said:
Just me perhaps but I'll never use them.
TX.
I don’t use taxis much in any event, so this isn't an issue for me.TX.
I am more worried about being hit by one, especially on my bike. There can only be one winner in such an event.
My criteria for driverless car safety would be if a car could spend the day entering and leaving the Arc de Triumph gyratory. I reckon that is about as tough as it gets for any driver, but my guess is that the car would just give up saying it was too dangerous - take-over.
I was a little disappointed with the program. The first episode was truly mind-blowing, she was quite shaken hearing her own voice at the other end of the phone. The thought of thousands communicating with friends and relatives in the afterlife was thought provoking. The Dutch guy with the train set and digital concubine was just mind-blowing.
Randy Winkman said:
One of the two incidents in the programme was about someone (a person pushing a bike across a road) being hit by a car and killed. She was described as having been "jaywalking". In London and possibly everywhere else in the UK there isnt really a concept of "jaywalking". There are just busy roads with all sorts of stuff going on including some fairly risky crossing of roads by pedestrians.
At the risk of mixing up two topics, like the person hit by another car when broken down in the outside lane of a motorway, I dont want to see someone pay the ultimate price for a bad decision if it can be avoided. People should do their best to cross the road safely but technology shouldn't punish them if they dont.
I just look at say St Peter St in Manchester in a Friday night bars and clubs rammed, piss pots all over the footpaths and in the road, mini cabs and taxis doing mad random manoeuvres, young lads in C63's or M3's trying to do burn outs, buses trying to get through .. throw in a couple of police/ambo/fire trying to get through and then a waymo in the middle of it ... not a good mix At the risk of mixing up two topics, like the person hit by another car when broken down in the outside lane of a motorway, I dont want to see someone pay the ultimate price for a bad decision if it can be avoided. People should do their best to cross the road safely but technology shouldn't punish them if they dont.
My car constantly beeps at me to tell me I'm
gonna crash, see parked vans as a threat or reads the wrong road signs, says I'm going to crash into an oncoming car etc
Yet when a full grown stag ran out in front of me the other night on a country road ... nothing, nada, not a thing ... the humanoid control unit had to step in and apply emergency correction !
Randy Winkman said:
Earthdweller said:
Randy Winkman said:
The first episode of this was interesting too but I focused on the second in my title as it was about cars.
Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
The concern for me is whether the tech is suitable for and will work in dense crowded narrow and twisty European streets Driverless taxis will be coming to the UK later this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drw12z51o
London is a million miles away from LA in terms of pedestrian, cycle, public transport usage and space for instance
I think I'll stick with a cabbie and his knowledge for a while and see what happens
At the risk of mixing up two topics, like the person hit by another car when broken down in the outside lane of a motorway, I dont want to see someone pay the ultimate price for a bad decision if it can be avoided. People should do their best to cross the road safely but technology shouldn't punish them if they dont.
abzmike said:
The "jaywalking" accident was someone crossing a pitch dark freeway, so quite unusual... Do many people try to cross dark motorways, walking with a bicycle?
I guess not - it did look rather foolish. Unless I'm mistaken though, that was the one where Fry said that the recorded evidence showed that the car had actually seen her a fair few seconds in advance but just couldnt decide what she was and what to do. It kept changing it's mind until it ran into her. That did seem to be a complete cock-up in the programming of the system which I hope has been resolved.rdjohn said:
I don t use taxis much in any event, so this isn't an issue for me.
I am more worried about being hit by one, especially on my bike. There can only be one winner in such an event.
My criteria for driverless car safety would be if a car could spend the day entering and leaving the Arc de Triumph gyratory. I reckon that is about as tough as it gets for any driver, but my guess is that the car would just give up saying it was too dangerous - take-over.
I was a little disappointed with the program. The first episode was truly mind-blowing, she was quite shaken hearing her own voice at the other end of the phone. The thought of thousands communicating with friends and relatives in the afterlife was thought provoking. The Dutch guy with the train set and digital concubine was just mind-blowing.
Being honest, I probably agree that the first episode was better but just started this thread because of the subject matter of the second one. The bit you mention did indeed shock her. And the Dutch guy was odd - he seemed to me to be using the AI companion for friendship a bit like a dog that doesn't need to be fed or taken for a walk. The guy that was going to kill the Queen clearly had problems but I think the programme did highlight that was the case anyway but the AI "echo-chamber" was providing validation. I am more worried about being hit by one, especially on my bike. There can only be one winner in such an event.
My criteria for driverless car safety would be if a car could spend the day entering and leaving the Arc de Triumph gyratory. I reckon that is about as tough as it gets for any driver, but my guess is that the car would just give up saying it was too dangerous - take-over.
I was a little disappointed with the program. The first episode was truly mind-blowing, she was quite shaken hearing her own voice at the other end of the phone. The thought of thousands communicating with friends and relatives in the afterlife was thought provoking. The Dutch guy with the train set and digital concubine was just mind-blowing.
Randy Winkman said:
abzmike said:
The "jaywalking" accident was someone crossing a pitch dark freeway, so quite unusual... Do many people try to cross dark motorways, walking with a bicycle?
I guess not - it did look rather foolish. Unless I'm mistaken though, that was the one where Fry said that the recorded evidence showed that the car had actually seen her a fair few seconds in advance but just couldnt decide what she was and what to do. It kept changing it's mind until it ran into her. That did seem to be a complete cock-up in the programming of the system which I hope has been resolved.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff