Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
1–10 of 495 posts
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#2I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver).
I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed to be as good or better than a human, to hold automation accountable the same as a human. And in this case, if this driver acted the way autopilot did based on the same available information, we would say the driver committed suicide or was somehow incompetent.
I see this as possibly a case of automation committing involuntary manslaughter (unintentional homicide from criminally negligent or reckless conduct).
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#3I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver). I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed…
> ... it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe...
The scary thing is, by definition of what is being automated there can be no fail-safe. The only "safe" is to stop the car. If the car detected it was going to crash, then it wouldn't have had the failure in the first place. By the time the failure might be detected, it is already too late for "safe".
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#4I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver). I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed…
We don’t expect all kinds of drivers and vehicles to fit the same safety bell curve. You’ve made an assertion, but what legal framework are you are using to treat this particular human-machine interaction differently without introducing a whole new class of liability for humans and traditional manufacturers?
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#5I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver). I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed…
> or was somehow incompetent
If they survived, they would have lost their license and been charged with some form of reckless driving.
The underlying issue is that manufacturers are beta testing on the road and almost literally playing with peoples lives in the process.
Legislation, although would hurt innovation, in this case is appropriate to ensure that the race to the finish doesn’t have a blood-stained legacy.
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#6I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver). I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed…
you cant expect the human driver to be ready to take over autopilot in any meaningful way. if the driver is alert enough to the conditions and physically ready at the appropriate controls to do that, then they are already driving. still, despite it not being based on science, but legal reasons, companies pretend that humans can "take over" when alerted to. maybe a lawsuit will change that idiocy.
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#7That news about this case is being spread everywhere irks me a bit, because people aren't considering the actual circumstances of the accident. Excerpt from the article:
"According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road, despite the car providing multiple warnings to do so."
This deserves a WTF. He understood autopilot makes errors, complained to his wife several times [0] that the car usually makes errors in that exact spot, and yet wasn't paying enough attention on a clear day with ideal driving conditions to commute safely.
[0] "Family members say he complained about his Tesla veering into the same barrier at the exact location of the crash and that he brought his car into the dealership several times to report a problem with the autopilot function." from https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/05/01/family-driver-d...
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#8I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver). I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed…
Well, this brings to light the concept from the movie I, Robot. Is it a crime when an ai kills someone, unintentional or not, or is it an industrial accident? If it's suppose to replace a human task due to a "level of intelligence", is it still taxed as equipment or as an employee? Is the company (due to equipment failures) or the ai (choosing to do an action on its own) at fault?
To be fair, these questions need to be hard lined pretty soon.
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#9I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver). I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed…
> it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information
I don't think anyone disagrees on that. The question is: is the software worse than a human driver? Do we have enough data for a statistically significant judgement on that? Is it even autonomous enough to say anything either way, like, if the driver is required to be at attention anyway, can the software be blamed for anything in the first place? Those are the questions, I don't think there is a point saying "software must be good!"
Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash
#10I think it's unacceptable for automation to produce a worse result than a human in the same situation, with the same information. i.e. it's not acceptable for automation to fail danger, it must fail safe, including even if all it can do is give up (disconnects, warning tone, hands control over to the human driver). I think it's reasonable, in the narrow case where primary control is asserted and competency is claimed…
We don’t expect all kinds of drivers and vehicles to fit the same safety bell curve. You’ve made an assertion, but what legal framework are you are using to treat this particular human-machine interaction differently without introducing a whole new class of liability for humans and traditional manufacturers?
>but what legal framework are you are using to treat this particular human-machine interaction differently without introducing a whole new class of liability for humans and traditional manufacturers?
Humans are not robots?