261–270 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about having a switch on a laptop. And if the switch doesn't just kill power (which it shouldn't to safely shut down), then it shouldn't be a switch it might be better as a button.
"Turns off when I tell it to and does not disobey me" is part of "safe".
Anyway, I'd rather avoid accidents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the analogy fail given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible and pursued and unicorns not?
>Doesn't the analogy fail given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible Only if there is a mathematical proof that eventually it will happen, someone might proof the reverse that current type of tech will never be good enough for general purpose driving and will work only in some specific conditions.
This is a rather intuitive mathematical proof that neural nets can emulate all functions in many dimensions. Knowing integrals (Calc 102) would help.
With this information it’s either that self-driving is eventually possible or human brains are not mathematically representable (i.e. something akin to a soul).
Meanwhile, the data collection/storage is getting better (all Teslas are continually testing FSD and reporting failure cases, synthetic generation of “good and unique” perfectly labeled data[0] is only a year or two “old”). Sensors/cameras are improving (and have a lot more room to improve). The compute hardware is getting better and cheaper (analog computers[1], TSMC 2nm and beyond, Apple/Google/Teslas neural cores, etc).
Additionally, given Waymo is already in production without humans in PHX it’s arguable that we already have “autonomous vehicles”. We now just need them to improve slightly and for Waymo or similar to test in the top 25 cities in the US. Which is mostly a matter of capital and time not technology limits. Maybe weather will be an issue for a few more years/decades - but even if Waymo only operated in Summer, I’d be happy to reduce my Lyft costs - and with enough data and maybe better sensors the neural nets will be able to handle weather too. Especially if the car just goes slow.
[0] https://youtu.be/j0z4FweCy4M
[1] https://youtu.be/GVsUOuSjvcg
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/08/heres-what-it-was-like-to-ri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The owner is going to be liable, regardless of who is in control. Just like if someone else is driving your car and causes an accident, you (the owner) are the one who will pay.
"Just like if someone else is driving your car and causes an accident, you (the owner) are the one who will pay." What? Do you go to jail If someone kills a pedestrian with your car? Do you have to pay compensation for injuries? I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but here the one who cuased damage is the one who pays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most people choose to use cars despite that increasing both death rate and accident rate. In most of the US (not where I live, thankfully) the "choice" is use a car or stay home. Not much of a choice.
Sure, the fact that people choose the more appealing option doesn't mean there wasn't a choice. That's just what people do when they have multiple options: they choose the one that's best according to whatever their criteria are. And many people might make a similar choice to reclaim multiple hours per day of driving time to do other things (like sleep, work, relax, etc.) while their car drives itself.
Go and move to West Memphis, TN (or, as I said, with most places in the US) and try to live without a car.
Not really a choice. Which is why I live in a place with halfway-decent (well, the best in the US anyway) public transport.
I was at a crosswalk and saw a car with the big cameras on top coming Normally I walk and have confidence the human will stop and not want the consequences, or I at least make eye contact with the human driver for reassurance they will stop This time I ran, mumbling “self driving car fuck that”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if I'm optimistic about autonomous vehicles or just very pessimistic about human drivers. I have no confidence that the next driver making a left turn while I'm crossing the road won't kill me. I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me, even if the software may have the occasional bug, than with a human who may or may not prioritize my life over whatever else it is…
Literally, when my dad taught me to drive, the first thing he told me was: 'Every other driver on the road is an idiot and a murderer. Act accordingly.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is problematic for a number of reasons. The most important in my mind is that the risk of the vehicle being hacked and carjacked remotely is always present. Which raises the question: "Why would we engineer vehicles to accept external network connections?" Any communication to/from a vehicle should only be initiated by the vehicle itself. There's no reasonable criteria under which a vehicle should have its syst…
Not accepting connections is not enough to be protected on the internet. A connection is just a special case of an incoming packet, any incoming packet is potentially malicious, even if the source IP:Port are ones you initiated a connection with. For example, most web-based malware is downloaded from connections you initiated.
Where is the requirement (or even a good reason) that a vehicle be connected to the internet?
Which is the same question to be asked about ovens, toilets and a raft of other stuff too.
I'd say "none."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, the fact that people choose the more appealing option doesn't mean there wasn't a choice. That's just what people do when they have multiple options: they choose the one that's best according to whatever their criteria are. And many people might make a similar choice to reclaim multiple hours per day of driving time to do other things (like sleep, work, relax, etc.) while their car drives itself.
Absolutely. Go and move to West Memphis, TN (or, as I said, with most places in the US) and try to live without a car. Not really a choice. Which is why I live in a place with halfway-decent (well, the best in the US anyway) public transport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if I'm optimistic about autonomous vehicles or just very pessimistic about human drivers. I have no confidence that the next driver making a left turn while I'm crossing the road won't kill me. I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me, even if the software may have the occasional bug, than with a human who may or may not prioritize my life over whatever else it is…
> I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me I think the real concern that the car is actually programmed explicitly to kill you if it has to, to ensure it's own safety or the safety of it's riders or something.
If a car is programmed that way, how does that benefit the car company (or the programmer)? It's just a different family that sues them if someone dies that didn't have to die. Are you thinking they could advertise it as "prioritizes your life more than random other people!" That's just begging for a lawsuit.
And they especially wouldn't program the car to protect itself above a human life. Why would you think it would? The car is not nearly valuable enough to outweigh the cost of a lawsuit.