Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Software is not ready for that yet, I think. It will never happen. Robots will never have the intelligence to manage dangerous situations in the open world, only in controlled environments. After a series of accidents passes the unforgivable threshold, certain levels of autonomous driving will be banned completely.
It will definitely happen, and likely (>50%) within the next 10-15 years. We need true GAI to do this, of course, and the question is: will a "real" GAI be willing to drive a car? How much will we have to pay it?
Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
221–230 of 331 posts
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#222Less anybody think "this is no big deal", let me assure you as a former firefighter, cars driving over fire hoses is a MAJOR deal. Whether the car is driven by a human or AI. And sadly, humans do this all too often anyway. FWIW, the reason(s) this is bad - if not obvious - include: - The hose can (and does) get snagged on the car's under-carriage, which can rip it away from a hydrant, or engine, or yank an attack lin…
I'm slightly alarmed by the general scenario of a driverless vehicle approaching an emergency situation. A human-driven vehicle will respond to gestures from firefighters to go around, etc. And even most dull humans will have more situational awareness and flexibility than an AI is likely to, particularly as these sorts of scenarios are edge cases by definition. E.g. depending on your jurisdiction and the situation,…
When I was on sales trip to KL in Malaysia there were times when the tropical rain could half flood a street in minutes. Our driver was able to creep around the shallow side of the road (alternating with cars in the other direction).
How would a driverless car cope? Would it even detect that there was problem? and if it detected it and wouldn't drive on that might be the worst thing to do if the flooding was going to get worse.
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure they meant faking being a ambulance or a firefighter or a cop to rob someone.
Ah sorry, misinterpretation on my end. You are probably right. But: fake cops robbing people is pretty common too. Unfortunately. Even more unfortunate, real cops doing it also happens.
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an attitude. It's reality. Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. That is, other than creating "cool" jobs and supporting get rich schemes and startups. If we cared about transportation and climate change, we'd be investing in…
> cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions No… they are _not_ the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Road transport accounts for less than 12% of emissions[0]. What does climate change have to do with driverless cars anyway? It seems like you're basically saying we should keep driving miserable under some false pretense that it's responsible for…
> It seems like you're basically saying we should keep driving miserable under some false pretense that it's responsible for the death of the planet.
And no, that's not what I'm saying. Self-driving cars are just trying to patch the problem of terrible traffic and terrible public transportation. By doing so, they aren't solving any real problem, and they will increase problems of congestion and also climate change, since they will continue to bolster cars and thus roads needed to support cars.
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think never is a strong word. You genuine believe that we'll never create an equivalent or even comparable intelligence to our own artificially?
I think there's no stage at which you trust such an entity with something like driving until it wants a robot to drive it's car so it can do other things than focus on driving. In the same way you don't trust a 5 year old with a loaded gun, you don't trust real synthetic intelligence with something like driving you safely. Not until it reaches the level where it wants equal rights, suffrage, and generally to be treat…
There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals.
Heck, even counting votes would be quite impossible (how much divergence does a copy need before it gets its own vote? What it not all modules/nodes are copied?).
Also, the anti-suffrage women seem to have been erased from history as far as popular discourse goes... guess the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League isn't taught in schools (support amongst women for extending the vote was very lukewarm, becoming a majority only after the law changed).
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an attitude. It's reality. Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. That is, other than creating "cool" jobs and supporting get rich schemes and startups. If we cared about transportation and climate change, we'd be investing in…
> Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. It may be the opposite, as driverless cars can potentially be utilized more efficiently. If I drive to a destination, my car will sit in a parking space doing nothing and wasting space. A driver…
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are the significant minority? This is the same claim always given by the A.I boosters. Who sees firefighters fighting a fire and decides to just plow through and make matters worse? Because by "significant minority" what you are saying is that 2 or 3 out of 10 human drivers do this.
Exactly. The fact that some humans are drunks or psychopaths does not mean that AI mistakes are going to just be accepted. We send people to prison when they make those kinds of mistakes, what do we do when machine learning models kill while functioning entirely normally?
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#228Less anybody think "this is no big deal", let me assure you as a former firefighter, cars driving over fire hoses is a MAJOR deal. Whether the car is driven by a human or AI. And sadly, humans do this all too often anyway. FWIW, the reason(s) this is bad - if not obvious - include: - The hose can (and does) get snagged on the car's under-carriage, which can rip it away from a hydrant, or engine, or yank an attack lin…
Question, wouldn't it suffice to just put a couple traffic cones in front of it? AVs should be already trained to recognize and stop for those.
In this context, the issue is actually pretty simple: it's a factor of available personnel and time. At least in the US, most municipal fire departments don't have the budget for enough staffing to run with all of their companies fully staffed (by NFPA standards). I'd posit that 3-person companies are the most common configuration you find these days, with 4-person being rare, and 5-person (or more) being all but unheard of. Ironically some volunteer departments actually put apparatus out the door with 4, 5, or 6 personnel more often than most paid departments. The tradeoff is the staffing with volunteer departments tends to be highly variable, so that same department, on a different day, may roll a truck with 1 or 2 personnel, or not roll at all.
Anyway, back to the point. Let's a assume a typical "working fire": the first due company arrives, and there is a LOT of stuff that needs to get done, and in a hurry. Size up needs to be done, ideally with somebody doing a 360° walkaround. One or more attack lines need to be stretched and put into operation. A primary search needs to be conducted unless somebody on scene can absolutely confirm that everybody is out of the building. Vertical ventilation may be required. Additional lines may need to be pulled to protect exposures. A water supply needs to be established. A RIT (rapid intervention team) should ideally be in place to rescue any firefighters who become trapped.
Did I mention that you're starting out with 3 people on that first arriving apparatus (and the operator needs to stay with the apparatus as a general rule)? And then as the subsequent arriving apparatus come in, their crews usually slot in behind the first company, doing all of the things on the list above, which are of critical priority.
What isn't on the list of critical priorities (in relative terms) is "place cones around the supply line, or other hose that happened to fall in the street".
Now by the time the 7th or 8th due company arrives, you probably have staffing for things like putting out cones, doing traffic control, etc. But they're probably coming from the other side of town, or might be a mutual aid company from another department. So you could easily be looking at 10, 12, 15, or more minutes before they roll up. So it's during that first, let's say 15 minutes, of an incident, that you usually don't have cones put put, traffic control established (PD might be available to help with that, but they're dealing with their own staffing issues), and so on. And during this time is when things like "car running over the supply line" tend to happen.
It's unfortunate, but largely it's just the reality of the way things work today, based on the staffing that's available. If every company was showing up with 5 or 6 personnel, this stuff would happen a lot sooner.
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think never is a strong word. You genuine believe that we'll never create an equivalent or even comparable intelligence to our own artificially?
I think there's no stage at which you trust such an entity with something like driving until it wants a robot to drive it's car so it can do other things than focus on driving. In the same way you don't trust a 5 year old with a loaded gun, you don't trust real synthetic intelligence with something like driving you safely. Not until it reaches the level where it wants equal rights, suffrage, and generally to be treat…
Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an attitude. It's reality. Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. That is, other than creating "cool" jobs and supporting get rich schemes and startups. If we cared about transportation and climate change, we'd be investing in…
I'm of this attitude as well, that the Jevon's paradox would kick in for cars again and lead to more use, like how ride-hailing apps worsened congestion.