Earlier quoted context omitted.
Children are pretty much fungible before a certain age.
I realize you're probably joking, but life isn't fungible.
Don't worry, they meant "before birth", when children aren't really alive. /s
U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
291–300 of 376 posts
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>Not accepting connections is not enough to be protected on the internet. 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."
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with that! I was just pointing out that not accepting connections is not some one weird trick to connect to the internet without risking security!
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and if makers of kitchen implements were jailed for knife accidents/crime then we'd be eating soup with plastic spoons for every meal. It doesn't make sense to have universal product liability in that way: there are too many creative idiots.
In terms of complexity and security features a car is much closer to an airplane than a knife. It's very disingenuous to compare it to a knife.
Not really; the fact is that sharp objects and heavy objects moving at speed are both inherently hazardous because of the basic nature of the physical world, but those same attributes make them extremely useful.
I don't object at all to holding manufacturers accountable for defective products; but it makes no sense to say "if your product is involved in an accident, you go to jail", which was the premise of the comment to which I responded.
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
No steering wheel does not imply no responsibility.
I mean, it kind of does. I do agree tho, “no steering wheel, no responsibility” should be explicit in law.
Presumably you mean "no responsibility for the owner", and the responsibility should be borne by the manufacturer. I'm not sure if that's the right set of incentives for society, though.
If the owner is responsible for any deaths caused by their car, the owner will have an incentive to choose a car that has a good safety record, and to keep that car in proper working order.
Conversely, if a corporation is responsible, they can only be punished with fines for causing a fatal accident, and those fines will be considered a cost of doing business. Also, the corporation will have a lot more money to invest in lobbying for laws (and judges) to make those fines as small as possible.
Let us not forget the infamous "Pinto Memo":
https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/autos/2008/oct/17/pinto-memo...
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
>* Triggering my home alarm if someone interferes with the car while it's parked in my driveway. Why should that require the Internet? An analog radio can do exactly that. >* Remote tracking/disabling if stolen. Not actually that useful directly but if most cars have this then fewer people will steal them. This is the worst reason. As we've seen, this has led to disabling of cars on the highway by auto finance compan…
Well like I said, you could disagree whether they are good reasons but to me they are good reasons. > An analog radio can do exactly that. An analogue radio can do anything that an internet connection or digital radio does, but it's sort of redundant to reimplement all the functionality that modern IP gives you just because you don't like the internet. In particular, my alarm doesn't have any programmable analogue ra…
>An analogue radio can do anything that an internet connection or digital radio does, but it's sort of redundant to reimplement all the functionality that modern IP gives you just because you don't like the internet.
Who says I don't like the Internet?
Quite the opposite, in fact. But not all communication should be done via that network of inter-connected networks.
No wireless (and in some cases, even wired) communication can ever be completely secure.
When there's a device (in this case a vehicle) that can cause injury, death, destruction and/or other mayhem, taking steps to ensure that it can't be controlled remotely, as long as humans are in the mix, is a necessity not a burden.
You may be happy to put your life in the hands of a script kiddie maliciously updating your vehicle's operating software, but I'm not.
Sure, there are many conveniences associated with allowing remote access to vehicles. But when I get behind the wheel (or potentially in a passenger seat of a self-driving vehicle), my top priority is not to die.
Allowing arbitrary connections to a device that can kill me contradicts that priority.
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a suspicion that housing will stop being a crisis due to a combination of: 1) the main expense is the land, the houses themselves are cheap, so anything that causes existing-but-undesirable houses to now be in a commuter zone increases useful supply 2) self-driving vehicles will allow people to commute while asleep or doing their hobbies (this is a terrible idea with current tech, people already get in trouble…
> self-driving vehicles will allow people to commute while asleep or doing their hobbies This doesn't eliminate the traffic issues and energy consumption associated with long commutes. Self-driving cars are a substitute for the efficiency benefits of density. If anything, the expansion of remote work has just pushed the housing crisis into more housing markets.
> This doesn't eliminate the traffic issues and energy consumption associated with long commutes.
How are traffic issues relevant to housing costs when no person is wasting time in the driver seat?
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is patches. The more complex and "smart" something gets the more patches you need. And since you dont want to go to the mechanic every time, firmware over the air it is.
>The answer is patches. The more complex and "smart" something gets the more patches you need. And since you dont want to go to the mechanic every time, firmware over the air it is. Maybe in your vehicle. But certainly never in mine. Any vehicle whose software can be remotely modified is one I'll never buy. As I said, that's a disaster waiting to happen.
A bug that affects your car that don’t get patched timely is also a disaster waiting to happen. Clearly it’s a risk model that you are willing to accept. I am not.
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
You will not be criminally liable for what another driver does in your car (unless perhaps you agreed to let him drive knowing he was drunk or something like that) but you (as owner of the vehicle that caused the damage or injury) will be financially liable. You will be sued. Your insurance will pay.
> unless perhaps you agreed to let him drive knowing he was drunk or something like that
To provide some extra context, it's also possible to be criminally liable for what another driver does after leaving your car if they commit a crime that you had foreknowledge of. Here is one tragic example of a case where this happened:
https://truecrimedaily.com/2017/06/08/exclusive-ryan-holle-c...
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a human is far more likely than a car to have a self-protection tendency. 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'…
A human is less likely to mistake a garbage can for an oncoming car and then make the choice to run me over out of self preservation, though. Comparing a car programmed for self preservation versus a human seeking their self preservation only really makes sense if the car and human are both equally capable of assessing threats. At the moment I don't think cars are at the same level. Maybe I'm wrong. Humans are fallib…
You are mixing competence with agenda. Which is it? If you are concerned it is not as competent as a human, fine, that's defensible.
But that's not what you said. You said you were concerned about its agenda, that it would be intentionally prioritize the lives of its passengers over other lives (and even suggested it would prioritize the preservation of the vehicle itself more highly)
you said....
>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.
My comment was about that....the "agenda" issue, which is 100% what your comment was about.
To be clear (if I wasn't in a previous message)
There is NO incentive for it to be explicitly programmed to do that, since the company could be equally sued by pedestrians as it could by passengers.
There IS incentive for a human to behave that way, since natural selection built a self protection motivation deeply into the human brain.
There is also very strong incentive AGAINST prioritizing protection of the vehicle itself over any human -- passenger or not. For both human drivers and driving software programmers.
Anyway, you seem to be changing your argument to one of competence, which to me is a completely different discussion. (I think self driving cars are better at some things and humans are better at other things, but eventually cars will be better -- or at least equal -- for the vast majority)
Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of complexity and security features a car is much closer to an airplane than a knife. It's very disingenuous to compare it to a knife.
Not really; the fact is that sharp objects and heavy objects moving at speed are both inherently hazardous because of the basic nature of the physical world, but those same attributes make them extremely useful. I don't object at all to holding manufacturers accountable for defective products; but it makes no sense to say "if your product is involved in an accident, you go to jail", which was the premise of the comme…
> Not really
Citation needed.
> was the premise of the comment to which I responded.
It clearly wasn't.