User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:42:33 PM EDT
A jumble of sawhorses and traffic cones simulates a road crew working over a manhole, and the driverless car must decide: Obey the law against crossing a double-yellow line, or break the law and spare the crew. It splits the difference, veering at the last moment and nearly colliding with the cones.
“I imagine that wasn’t the most comfortable experience for you,” Chris Gerdes, a boyish and bespectacled Stanford engineering professor, calls out to the slightly shaken passenger in the car. Gerdes is suddenly causing a great deal of discomfort to automakers and tech giants When human drivers face impossible dilemmas, choices are made in the heat of the moment and can be forgiven. But if a machine can be programmed to make the choice, what should it be? Link 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:44:29 PM EDT
[#1]
it's about time for some video of these things in action
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:46:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Sounds like one of those philosophical dilemmas they give you in school.
"A runaway train is about to kill a five person work crew on its current course; do you throw a switch so that it kills the one person crossing on the other track or let it continue?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:47:51 PM EDT
[#3]
If there is no right choice for a human, there isn't one for the machine.
It is however easier to hate the machine's choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:49:01 PM EDT
[#4]
They will chose the option of killing the most people including the passenger's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:49:22 PM EDT
[#5]
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order:
1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:49:51 PM EDT
[#6]
I'll be interested to know the answers to his questions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:49:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Unless the software is designed to value the occupants over all else, I am not interested.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:51:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:51:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If there is no right choice for a human, there isn't one for the machine. It is however easier to hate the machine's choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:51:32 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:52:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like one of those philosophical dilemmas they give you in school. "A runaway train is about to kill a five person work crew on its current course; do you throw a switch so that it kills the one person crossing on the other track or let it continue?" Yup. It's the trolley problem, in classic form. But programming these things isn't like that. Neither people or computers make choices based on those sorts of things in the real world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:53:25 PM EDT
[#12]
So, how many of you would purchase a car that is programmed to kill you instead of a pedestrian or two?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:53:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects If it truly follows those rules (in general terms), then a ticket should probably never happen, as it was just trying to protect someone or something else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:54:18 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket What do you mean by ticket? Like, citation ticket? If I'm the owner of a driverless car, there better not be any tickets for a decision the software made that I have NO control over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:55:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, how many of you would purchase a car that is programmed to kill you instead of a pedestrian or two? NOPE NOPE NOPE |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:55:54 PM EDT
[#16]
What they failed to mention in the article was that after the computer avoided hitting any cones, Tammy plowed right through them while fighting with autocorrect over the correct spelling for 'totes'". During questioning, she insisted that it wasn't her fault that they put a manhole there and that they shouldn't put them in the middle of the road.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:57:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket And what about when the choice is between killing two people. The "Trolley" problem is an interesting example, but if the choice is between; 1. A 70 year old man in a wheel 2. A 7 year old child 3. A 25 year old woman. Who do you kill, and how do you tell a car to make that choice. A semi autonomous car has the benefit of reverting to the driver who is supposed to be paying attention and able to over ride during an emergency, but a driverless car needs to make that choice on its own, while its passenger sleeps. Further, who pays the wrongful death claim |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 1:59:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:00:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And what about when the choice is between killing two people. The "Trolley" problem is an interesting example, but if the choice is between; 1. A 70 year old man in a wheel 2. A 7 year old child 3. A 25 year old woman. Who do you kill, and how do you tell a car to make that choice. A semi autonomous car has the benefit of reverting to the driver who is supposed to be paying attention and able to over ride during an emergency, but a driverless car needs to make that choice on its own, while its passenger sleeps. Further, who pays the wrongful death claim Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket And what about when the choice is between killing two people. The "Trolley" problem is an interesting example, but if the choice is between; 1. A 70 year old man in a wheel 2. A 7 year old child 3. A 25 year old woman. Who do you kill, and how do you tell a car to make that choice. A semi autonomous car has the benefit of reverting to the driver who is supposed to be paying attention and able to over ride during an emergency, but a driverless car needs to make that choice on its own, while its passenger sleeps. Further, who pays the wrongful death claim How many times, ever, does that choice happen in reality? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:02:40 PM EDT
[#20]
I'll drive my own fucking car thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:03:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many times, ever, does that choice happen in reality? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket And what about when the choice is between killing two people. The "Trolley" problem is an interesting example, but if the choice is between; 1. A 70 year old man in a wheel 2. A 7 year old child 3. A 25 year old woman. Who do you kill, and how do you tell a car to make that choice. A semi autonomous car has the benefit of reverting to the driver who is supposed to be paying attention and able to over ride during an emergency, but a driverless car needs to make that choice on its own, while its passenger sleeps. Further, who pays the wrongful death claim How many times, ever, does that choice happen in reality? Happened to me twice just week. I picked the old guy. Apparently that was the wrong answer so I got a ticket. Just for future reference, go for the 25 year old woman. Someone, somewhere, is tired of her bitching. At least that's how the responding officer laid it out for me while I was signing the ticket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:05:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Autonomous school bus has a tire blowout and talks to your autonomous car and cuts a deal to steer into the bus so you go into the ravine instead of the bus full of children.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket No. Self driving cars will not talk to each other for a long time. It's a fantasy. To begin with competing manufacturers would have to agree on a protocol. They would have to transmit and receive messages. This won't happen without a government mandate, and I sure a shit dont want the .gov telling my car who to listen to, hell I don't like listening to them myself. Furthermore it presents a legitimate security risk, and what manufacturer wants to gamble that they won't be the first to get hacked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:07:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Liability concerns will kill completely self-driving cars in our lifetimes. Technology is not there yet to replace a driver in all conditions and circumstances. Not to mention the law. (Officer, it was Twiki here who blew the red light!)
That said, I'll be happy when I can get a good highway-only autopilot. Much easier to code for, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:07:52 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many times, ever, does that choice happen in reality? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket And what about when the choice is between killing two people. The "Trolley" problem is an interesting example, but if the choice is between; 1. A 70 year old man in a wheel 2. A 7 year old child 3. A 25 year old woman. Who do you kill, and how do you tell a car to make that choice. A semi autonomous car has the benefit of reverting to the driver who is supposed to be paying attention and able to over ride during an emergency, but a driverless car needs to make that choice on its own, while its passenger sleeps. Further, who pays the wrongful death claim How many times, ever, does that choice happen in reality? That's irrelevant. You have to program logic into the computer to solve any problem that could arise, that is the point of the ethicist in the article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:09:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Did Pajama Boy design that fucking... thing? Who the fuck made the rule that electric, hybrid, or other new tech cars must look like a limp wristed hipster's wet dream, and why the fuck do these creamy pussed engineers obey that rule? Are the trying to make the car have some type of faggoty Johnny #5 face? No fuck that, Johnny #5 is a ax weilding serial killer compared to this pile of yeast infection. Oh shit, they forgot the cutesy little eyelashes over the headlights. My God, I could carry that car on my shoulder. What dumbass would be crazy enough to drive that coke can on the interstate next to a log truck? Who would drive it in the first fucking place?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:09:49 PM EDT
[#26]
One issue that I have yet to read about regarding driverless cars is liability.
Currently, a manufacturer is only liable for defects and / or design deficiencies. Once driving decisions are made by software, that a massive new liability that falls on the manufacturer. For the life of the vehicle. Every little fender bender, every accident, every fuckup that happens when the driver is not in active control of the vehicle is now the responsibility of the manufacturer. The article in the OP is just the tip of the iceberg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:10:09 PM EDT
[#27]
The left pedal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:11:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you as an occupant owner responsible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If there is no right choice for a human, there isn't one for the machine. It is however easier to hate the machine's choice. Are you as an occupant owner responsible? That would be a question for a court to decide. A driverless car would be integrated into a much larger system of driverless and driven cars. What responsibility would the system bear versus the owner/occupant of the car? That would depend on the maturity if the technology, and the answer to your question will change with time based on the expectations of the system versus the expectations of the owner.. For instance, what if you sent the car to pick up your kids and there was an accident on the way home? Would a jury who does the very same things with their driverless cars punish the owner of the car for the car's decisions, not likely. However if you were the only one who sent the car for the kids, the jury would find it much easier to nail the owner to the wall. The courts are in for an interesting ride. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:12:04 PM EDT
[#29]
And that's just a basic problem about missing a road crew. What if it was something more complicated? Will the number of people that get Reginald Denny'd soar because their automated car doesn't know the POS standing in the road needs to be ran over?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:12:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Liability concerns will kill completely self-driving cars in our lifetimes. Technology is not there yet to replace a driver in all conditions and circumstances. Not to mention the law. (Officer, it was Twiki here who blew the red light!). Agree |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:12:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Liability concerns will kill completely self-driving cars in our lifetimes. Technology is not there yet to replace a driver in all conditions and circumstances. Not to mention the law. (Officer, it was Twiki here who blew the red light!) That said, I'll be happy when I can get a good highway-only autopilot. Much easier to code for, too. Pretty much. I wouldn't be surprised to see semi automatic modes for highways come about soon, for use its pretty easy to say "stay in the lane, don't hit anything, keep pace to 75mph or with the car in front" in the event of a deer or swerving soccar mom, the car will slam the brakes. But people won't pay attention and accidents will still happen. Eventually you will get the choice of cruise control or steering assist. But you won't be able to engage both at the same time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:13:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Self driving cars will not talk to each other for a long time. It's a fantasy. To begin with competing manufacturers would have to agree on a protocol. They would have to transmit and receive messages. This won't happen without a government mandate, and I sure a shit dont want the .gov telling my car who to listen to, hell I don't like listening to them myself. Furthermore it presents a legitimate security risk, and what manufacturer wants to gamble that they won't be the first to get hacked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket No. Self driving cars will not talk to each other for a long time. It's a fantasy. To begin with competing manufacturers would have to agree on a protocol. They would have to transmit and receive messages. This won't happen without a government mandate, and I sure a shit dont want the .gov telling my car who to listen to, hell I don't like listening to them myself. Furthermore it presents a legitimate security risk, and what manufacturer wants to gamble that they won't be the first to get hacked. So you think that there won't be a link to an autonomous vehicle? What about OnStar shutting down a vehicle's engine? How will that work in autonomous cars? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:13:57 PM EDT
[#33]
So I take it STOP wasn't an option???
 I would think if there was an obstacle in the path and there was no way around, the vehicle would simply stop and let the driver make the decision to wait until it is safe to cross the double yellow line. In this scenario its not like the obstacle suddenly appeared.
Now change the scenario to a child running out in front of a car. Does the car go left of center risking a head on collision or hit the child (assuming there is no way to stop in time)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:15:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. Self driving cars will not talk to each other for a long time. It's a fantasy. To begin with competing manufacturers would have to agree on a protocol. They would have to transmit and receive messages. This won't happen without a government mandate, and I sure a shit dont want the .gov telling my car who to listen to, hell I don't like listening to them myself. Furthermore it presents a legitimate security risk, and what manufacturer wants to gamble that they won't be the first to get hacked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket No. Self driving cars will not talk to each other for a long time. It's a fantasy. To begin with competing manufacturers would have to agree on a protocol. They would have to transmit and receive messages. This won't happen without a government mandate, and I sure a shit dont want the .gov telling my car who to listen to, hell I don't like listening to them myself. Furthermore it presents a legitimate security risk, and what manufacturer wants to gamble that they won't be the first to get hacked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:16:16 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One issue that I have yet to read about regarding driverless cars is liability. Currently, a manufacturer is only liable for defects and / or design deficiencies. Once driving decisions are made by software, that a massive new liability that falls on the manufacturer. For the life of the vehicle. Every little fender bender, every accident, every fuckup that happens when the driver is not in active control of the vehicle is now the responsibility of the manufacturer. The article in the OP is just the tip of the iceberg. Google execs have come out in favor of manufacturer liability, which promptly caused most of the major csr manufacturers to cut back support of driverless cars and switch to driver assisted systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:18:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Liability concerns will kill completely self-driving cars in our lifetimes. Technology is not there yet to replace a driver in all conditions and circumstances. Not to mention the law. (Officer, it was Twiki here who blew the red light!) That said, I'll be happy when I can get a good highway-only autopilot. Much easier to code for, too. I don't think so. Using insurance to spread the risk among the manufacturers isn't any different than using insurance to spread the risk among human drivers the way we already do. It can all built into the cost of owning a vehicle. The purchase price of the hardware and software go up, while the cost of your personal insurance goes down. Or the legislature passes a statute that imposes the harm caused by hardware and software failures on the owner of the vehicle. Risks posed by computer operated vehicles are not any different than risks posed by human operated vehicles. We'll still have wrecks, just like we do now. Although we'll probably have quite a bit fewer. If computers can already handle 90%+ of the duties of flying an airplane full of people, I think they'll be able to handle passenger cars better than the average person on the road can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:20:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless the software is designed to value the occupants over all else, I am not interested. 3 Laws Safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:20:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, one of the killer apps for self driving cars was supposed to be traveling in tightly spaced platoons to conserve road space and fuel-they'd need to talk to each other... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket No. Self driving cars will not talk to each other for a long time. It's a fantasy. To begin with competing manufacturers would have to agree on a protocol. They would have to transmit and receive messages. This won't happen without a government mandate, and I sure a shit dont want the .gov telling my car who to listen to, hell I don't like listening to them myself. Furthermore it presents a legitimate security risk, and what manufacturer wants to gamble that they won't be the first to get hacked. That's the urban planners wet dream. But I don't see it happening. At least not unless a central control system is established by a municipality. The automove industry is far too risk averse. Hell I just watched my company turn down a huge contract to adapt some of our next gen auto tech for use in jet liners, our lawyers said fuck that, we don't need that liability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:22:18 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will chose the option of killing the most people including the passenger's. I'm not sure why the made me laugh but it did |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:23:28 PM EDT
[#40]
The only way this driverless car shit is going to happen is if the .gov imbeds sensors in the road and the DOT can send messages to the car... "left lane is closed for work", "accident ahead", etc. There is going to have to be some sort of network where everything communicates.
No way an autonomous vehicle is going to work on the streets... First few incidents and the maker is going to go out of business from lawsuits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:23:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did Pajama Boy design that fucking... thing? Who the fuck made the rule that electric, hybrid, or other new tech cars must look like a limp wristed hipster's wet dream, and why the fuck do these creamy pussed engineers obey that rule? Are the trying to make the car have some type of faggoty Johnny #5 face? No fuck that, Johnny #5 is a ax weilding serial killer compared to this pile of yeast infection. Oh shit, they forgot the cutesy little eyelashes over the headlights. My God, I could carry that car on my shoulder. What dumbass would be crazy enough to drive that coke can on the interstate next to a log truck? Who would drive it in the first fucking place? BMW i8. Your argument is invalidated. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:24:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I take it STOP wasn't an option??? I would think if there was an obstacle in the path and there was no way around, the vehicle would simply stop and let the driver make the decision to wait until it is safe to cross the double yellow line. In this scenario its not like the obstacle suddenly appeared.
Now change the scenario to a child running out in front of a car. Does the car go left of center risking a head on collision or hit the child (assuming there is no way to stop in time)? Driverless car vs driver assisted cars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:24:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think so. Using insurance to spread the risk among the manufacturers isn't any different than using insurance to spread the risk among human drivers the way we already do. It can all built into the cost of owning a vehicle. The purchase price of the hardware and software go up, while the cost of your personal insurance goes down. Or the legislature passes a statute that imposes the harm caused by hardware and software failures on the owner of the vehicle. Risks posed by computer operated vehicles are not any different than risks posed by human operated vehicles. We'll still have wrecks, just like we do now. Although we'll probably have quite a bit fewer. If computers can already handle 90%+ of the duties of flying an airplane full of people, I think they'll be able to handle passenger cars better than the average person on the road can. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Liability concerns will kill completely self-driving cars in our lifetimes. Technology is not there yet to replace a driver in all conditions and circumstances. Not to mention the law. (Officer, it was Twiki here who blew the red light!) That said, I'll be happy when I can get a good highway-only autopilot. Much easier to code for, too. I don't think so. Using insurance to spread the risk among the manufacturers isn't any different than using insurance to spread the risk among human drivers the way we already do. It can all built into the cost of owning a vehicle. The purchase price of the hardware and software go up, while the cost of your personal insurance goes down. Or the legislature passes a statute that imposes the harm caused by hardware and software failures on the owner of the vehicle. Risks posed by computer operated vehicles are not any different than risks posed by human operated vehicles. We'll still have wrecks, just like we do now. Although we'll probably have quite a bit fewer. If computers can already handle 90%+ of the duties of flying an airplane full of people, I think they'll be able to handle passenger cars better than the average person on the road can. So, in the realm of public opinion, which car are you going to buy, the baby killer or the one that kills you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:25:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would be programmed to follow priorities in this order: 1) Skin 2) Tin 3) Ticket Who the hell are they going to cite in an autonomous vehicle? 1) occupants 2) pedestrians 3) other vehicles 4) inanimate/stationary objects Programmer and/or automaker. Or, perhaps, the company(ies) that make the various sensors...either for being too sensitive, or, not sensitive enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:25:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Isaac Asimov has already written the laws concerning this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:26:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much. I wouldn't be surprised to see semi automatic modes for highways come about soon, for use its pretty easy to say "stay in the lane, don't hit anything, keep pace to 75mph or with the car in front" in the event of a deer or swerving soccar mom, the car will slam the brakes. But people won't pay attention and accidents will still happen. Eventually you will get the choice of cruise control or steering assist. But you won't be able to engage both at the same time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Liability concerns will kill completely self-driving cars in our lifetimes. Technology is not there yet to replace a driver in all conditions and circumstances. Not to mention the law. (Officer, it was Twiki here who blew the red light!) That said, I'll be happy when I can get a good highway-only autopilot. Much easier to code for, too. Pretty much. I wouldn't be surprised to see semi automatic modes for highways come about soon, for use its pretty easy to say "stay in the lane, don't hit anything, keep pace to 75mph or with the car in front" in the event of a deer or swerving soccar mom, the car will slam the brakes. But people won't pay attention and accidents will still happen. Eventually you will get the choice of cruise control or steering assist. But you won't be able to engage both at the same time. That's what Cadillacs Super Cruise is supposed to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:27:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless the software is designed to value the occupants over all else, I am not interested. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:27:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only way this driverless car shit is going to happen is if the .gov imbeds sensors in the road and the DOT can send messages to the car... "left lane is closed for work", "accident ahead", etc. There is going to have to be some sort of network where everything communicates. No way an autonomous vehicle is going to work on the streets... First few incidents and the maker is going to go out of business from lawsuits. Someone hacks the system and tells the car that a construction detour for bridge work moves the lanes over 30 feet, and the sensors in that area are invalid. Or, they do that and put down fake sensors. Your car just drove you off of a 300ft embankment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:28:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isaac Asimov has already written the laws concerning this. No, he didn't. His were for android helpers A robotic car is a completely different ball A robo walking down the street can just stop. A 2ton robo car doing 75mph on a crowded freeway can't without causing damage and possibly killing people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:30:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone hacks the system and tells the car that a construction detour for bridge work moves the lanes over 30 feet, and the sensors in that area are invalid. Or, they do that and put down fake sensors. Your car just drove you off of a 300ft embankment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The only way this driverless car shit is going to happen is if the .gov imbeds sensors in the road and the DOT can send messages to the car... "left lane is closed for work", "accident ahead", etc. There is going to have to be some sort of network where everything communicates. No way an autonomous vehicle is going to work on the streets... First few incidents and the maker is going to go out of business from lawsuits. Someone hacks the system and tells the car that a construction detour for bridge work moves the lanes over 30 feet, and the sensors in that area are invalid. Or, they do that and put down fake sensors. Your car just drove you off of a 300ft embankment. Good point. ...or some pissed off DOT worker just doesn't give a shit and fails to keep up with proper maint, or budget cuts
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
