Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 331 posts

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#301

Post by prometheus76 »

Tv9m wrote: post #276
chongli wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no particular reason why advanced planning, modelling and pattern matching ability should need human-like goals. Because driving requires the ability to understand what other drivers are doing. It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals.

> It requires a theory of mind, which means understanding human goals. Like chess?

Chess is a perfect information game. Both opponents can see the entire board at all times. Reality, nor even driving, is not anywhere close to that. Weather, time of day, climate, seasonality, and other drivers throw constant and voluminous amounts of unpredictability into the mix.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#302

Post by alasdair_ »

jalk wrote: post #219
runarberg wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GAI is a pipe dream. There is no technology that we can even conceive—let alone build in the next 10-15 years—of which passes as GAI. Our current AI is based on statistical inference, GAI will need to be able to do far more than infer from data and interpolate actions. No we will never have GAI. --- I know never is a long time, but I can comfortably predict this because there is not only technological problems with G…

> the way we define intelligence is such that if we find or invent something that combats human intelligence we immediately redefine it to exclude that aspect. And what makes you so sure the opposite won't happen? E.g. GAI will be achieved earlier by excluding some aspect of human intelligence that some people deem essential. The whole "problem" is that we can't agree on what constitutes intelligence. I predict that…

>I predict that it won't be long before AI systems can score 200 on standard IQ tests.

I don't know of a "standard" iq test that goes past 160 or so.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#303

Post by ElectricalUnion »

runarberg wrote: post #259
fasterik wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to understand the worldview that leads to what you believe. As far as I can tell, you're assuming there is a supernatural aspect to the human mind. According to my worldview, humans are just robots built out of DNA, proteins, etc. The idea that machines couldn't do everything a human can do (and more) doesn't make any sense to me.

I’m sorry but I don’t have that world view. I must not have been clear enough (english is not my first language; and I’m not even super clear in my native language). I actually don’t believe in the superiority of the human mind, I think the word intelligence is actually a scientific distraction. Humans are remarkably—but not uniquely—adapted at communicating with each others and manipulating our environment for our b…

> In short, I don’t even think there is a market for AGI.

AGIs by their own general purpose nature can improve other AGIs, possibly including themselves. AGIs can improve other less general purpose AIs.

Either you could ask for the AGIs to improve what you need for you, or the AGIs might do it by themselves.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#304

Post by ElectricalUnion »

chongli wrote: post #236
mschuster91 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question of if an AI can be regarded as a sentient being has already been debated ad nauseam in science fiction (e.g. Data in Star Trek). All that's needed is someone to achieve GAI at a supercomputer level. From then on, it's just a matter of scaling it down. Your iPhone has more compute power than a supercomputer 30 years ago, after all. And what's also a way to "cheat" is fusing computers and organic matter. B…

Your iPhone has more compute power than a supercomputer 30 years ago, after all. In 30 years we will not have an iPhone-sized device with the power of today's supercomputers. Transistor scaling is in its final stages. We'll be lucky to get 2-3 more process nodes and that'll be it.

This assumes we don't use anything but transistor scaling for the next 30 years in mobile computing.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#305

Post by freitzkriesler »

thereisnospork wrote: post #239
freitzkriesler wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet you like to run untested alpha builds in production environments too. Be my guest and risk killing yourself by beta testing dangerous self driving vehicles and medical procedures that haven't gone through their trials. I risk nothing by not participating. Just do us all a favor and try not to take out others For Science™. Enjoy doing someone else's QC for free.

>I risk nothing by not participating. But you do , not participating has opportunity risk. It's an elementary CBA - give or take 40 thousand people will die, which could include either or both of us, for every year of delay in self-driving. Be it for 'prudent', 'common-sense' trials or otherwise. It's scary as hell[0] that there are otherwise smart people who don't see the car-shaped gun already pointed at them just…

> But you do, not participating has opportunity risk.

You're right it does, but I know what the risk is. I do not know what the risk is for said untested beta product.

Please valiantly be the better man by being society's guinea pig. I have a family and have reasons for living.

I would however recommend getting a life insurance policy so when the obvious happens you won't leave your loved ones high and dry.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#306

Post by ghaff »

jwestbury wrote: post #298
chongli wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a way to solve all these issues: keep humans (and other animals) away. This is how it's done with railroads. Unfortunately, there's not a whole of advantage in eliminating the engineer of a train since the ratio of engineers to passengers is so small to begin with. I think instead of flirting with this absurd fantasy of self-driving cars we should be doing more to invest in railroads and other forms of mass…

Mass transit doesn't get you exactly where you need to go. In areas with lower population density, it's especially unprofitable and difficult to implement -- and even if communities can afford it, it will deliver people even FARTHER from where they need to go. I'm a transit advocate, but there are some fundamental issues that need to be resolved first, especially in North America.

Even in Europe, there are a lot of places you can't get to or get to easily without a car. I've done long distance walks in England, for example, and once you get beyond cities and larger towns, it's often the case that there may be a once or twice a day bus.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#307

Post by BurningFrog »

williamcotton wrote: post #249
BurningFrog wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once there is a killswitch, it can be accessed by people and purposes it wasn't intended for.

Think this through. Like, really, think this through. What’s the goal? You want to steel a car? Rob the passengers? Kidnap the passengers? Kill the passengers? So what are your options in this world where there is the equivalent of a firefighters key in elevator, but probably using PKE and periodic private key cycling? Steal a key? From where? Buy one? From who and for how much? Ok, so now you’re needing to commit so…

I was thinking more that I pissed off a cop, and now my car randomly won't start.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#308

Post by williamcotton »

BurningFrog wrote: post #307
williamcotton wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think this through. Like, really, think this through. What’s the goal? You want to steel a car? Rob the passengers? Kidnap the passengers? Kill the passengers? So what are your options in this world where there is the equivalent of a firefighters key in elevator, but probably using PKE and periodic private key cycling? Steal a key? From where? Buy one? From who and for how much? Ok, so now you’re needing to commit so…

I was thinking more that I pissed off a cop, and now my car randomly won't start.

Well if I was working on such a system I would definitely want to log every shutdown event on storage in the vehicle itself. It could then be seen what key was used and compared to which officer had been assigned that key for the day at the beginning of their shift.

So yes, a pissed off (and stupid) cop could do this, but then you can turn around and go to the press with the information, call up a lawyer, and proceed in any other manner where you're being harassed by a police officer.

Cue some unrelated critique on policing in general that has nothing to do with what we're talking about...

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#309

Post by TheCoelacanth »

aendruk wrote: post #157
JohnFen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is to not allow these cars on the road until/unless they can behave properly.

If you must, you can do this when reading: “So what is the solution?” → “So what is the proper behavior?”

The proper behavior is to not run over fire hoses, and more broadly not to violate traffic laws.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#310

Post by sempron64 »

cowmoo728 wrote: post #93
colechristensen wrote: post #87

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.

Maybe I'm too optimistic about self driving but it seems that a fail-safe default of "upon encountering an active emergency situation, stop at a reasonable distance away" is good enough and better than what a significant minority of human drivers do.

What about a dangerous situation like a criminal trying to enter the vehicle where the right response is to avoid them and drive away?
Post reply on HN