11–19 of 19 posts
Using this as an example of a huge alignment and priorities issue in "AI"... Consider a kind of automobile crash for which driver of vehicle A is generally considered not-at-fault. For the sake of this discussion, let's say, a driver who gets rear-ended is generally considered not-at-fault (though I'm not sure that's the case -- just a simple example). However, if you have an interest in the safety of occupants of ve…
Using this as an example of a huge alignment and priorities issue in "AI"... Consider a kind of automobile crash for which driver of vehicle A is generally considered not-at-fault. For the sake of this discussion, let's say, a driver who gets rear-ended is generally considered not-at-fault (though I'm not sure that's the case -- just a simple example). However, if you have an interest in the safety of occupants of ve…
> since consumers might secretly favor a system that prioritizes the safety of the buyer Secretly? I am happy to go on record: I would not get into a car that would ever consider anyone's life more important than mine. I would not let anyone in my family do so either.
Consumers in general.
Of course HN will even have people openly say things approaching:
"In my value calculus, it is only rational to swerve the vehicle to plow through a sidewalk full of photogenic preschoolers on a field trip, to maximize my chance of survival, and increase the likelihood of my genetic material propagating and out-competing that of others. Nature has always selected for behavior such as this, and it is only right. It repels me that others do not think this way, or are too weak to admit it, because they are inferior in intellect and strength of will! Hence why I and my spawn shall be the rightful leaders over them!"
Vigorous gestures and armbands are optional.
My gut feel is that most people either don't think like that, or -- to the extent they do think a little like that -- they're selective about where and how they voice it.
"after two of its vehicles braked suddenly and were rear-ended by motorcyclists." While sudden braking definitely contributes to it and is dangerous, this is mostly the fault of the drivers crashing into the self-driving vehicles even if they stopped without a good reason. And those vehicles are rather obvious, i.e. the driver following could have known that tailgating them at an unsafe distance is an even worse idea…
"after two of its vehicles braked suddenly and were rear-ended by motorcyclists." While sudden braking definitely contributes to it and is dangerous, this is mostly the fault of the drivers crashing into the self-driving vehicles even if they stopped without a good reason. And those vehicles are rather obvious, i.e. the driver following could have known that tailgating them at an unsafe distance is an even worse idea…
You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. In traffic it is obvious that people will be starting and stopping so there the fault is the person in the back, but on a country road with no traffic the fault is not so clear. To your second point, nothing on those vehicles says "warning, no human in control" so I'm not sure how obvious it really is.
You absolutely can; it's what you're supposed to do if a toddler runs out in front of the car, for example. Barring malfunctioning brake lights, if you rear end a suddenly stopping vehicle, you were at fault for following at an unsafe distance.
Most legislation about this (example: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-22109/) says stuff like "when there is opportunity to give the signal". Screech brakes, then signal.
"after two of its vehicles braked suddenly and were rear-ended by motorcyclists." While sudden braking definitely contributes to it and is dangerous, this is mostly the fault of the drivers crashing into the self-driving vehicles even if they stopped without a good reason. And those vehicles are rather obvious, i.e. the driver following could have known that tailgating them at an unsafe distance is an even worse idea…
You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. In traffic it is obvious that people will be starting and stopping so there the fault is the person in the back, but on a country road with no traffic the fault is not so clear. To your second point, nothing on those vehicles says "warning, no human in control" so I'm not sure how obvious it really is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. In traffic it is obvious that people will be starting and stopping so there the fault is the person in the back, but on a country road with no traffic the fault is not so clear. To your second point, nothing on those vehicles says "warning, no human in control" so I'm not sure how obvious it really is.
> You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. You absolutely can; it's what you're supposed to do if a toddler runs out in front of the car, for example. Barring malfunctioning brake lights, if you rear end a suddenly stopping vehicle, you were at fault for following at an unsafe distance. Most legislation about this (example: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-22109/…
Kid in the street is a reason to stop suddenly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. You absolutely can; it's what you're supposed to do if a toddler runs out in front of the car, for example. Barring malfunctioning brake lights, if you rear end a suddenly stopping vehicle, you were at fault for following at an unsafe distance. Most legislation about this (example: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-22109/…
> for no reason Kid in the street is a reason to stop suddenly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. In traffic it is obvious that people will be starting and stopping so there the fault is the person in the back, but on a country road with no traffic the fault is not so clear. To your second point, nothing on those vehicles says "warning, no human in control" so I'm not sure how obvious it really is.
> You can't just stop suddenly out of nowhere for no reason without signaling. You absolutely can; it's what you're supposed to do if a toddler runs out in front of the car, for example. Barring malfunctioning brake lights, if you rear end a suddenly stopping vehicle, you were at fault for following at an unsafe distance. Most legislation about this (example: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-22109/…
But it's pretty hard to enforce just for the reasons you mentioned. "I saw something on the road" is a fairly bullet proof defence which nobody can counter.