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

211–220 of 331 posts

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

#211

Post by mschuster91 »

runarberg wrote: post #198
alasdair_ wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 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. Brain-in-a-vat style, or, for yet another Star Trek reference, Voyager's organic compute network (which IIRC even suffered a pathogen infection at one point). And that is definitely possible in the next 10-15 years. Give Musk's Neuralink enough apes to euthanize and it will get done.

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

#212

Post by buzzert »

bmitc wrote: post #71
buzzert wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. > We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive…

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 the death of the planet.

[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

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

#213

Post by mschuster91 »

sofixa wrote: post #111
LarryMullins wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a video showing perfidy committed by a Russian soldier in Ukraine. Several Russians were coming out of a building surrendering to some Ukrainian soldiers, when one of them came out with a gun and started shooting. All the Russians were killed in the subsequent firefight, because one of them ruined it for the rest. It may seem like a clever ruse in movies, but in real life it gets people killed.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so terrible. At this point it would be easier to list the war crimes not committed by the Russian army, they seem to be well intent on speed running the Geneva convention. One can only hope one day there's trials in e.g. The Hague to bring all war criminals to justice.

> One can only hope one day there's trials in e.g. The Hague to bring all war criminals to justice.

I hope that as well, but I think neither the US, Israel nor China will stand idle next to a nuclear power getting dragged in front of the ICC - not with the numerous counts of crimes each of these countries could reasonably be charged with. The Israelis may be the only ones being able to get away with a lot of their stuff given that their opponents continuously enact crimes as well (e.g. hiding military command structures under hospitals and schools), but the US and China? They can't pull that card.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

philliphaydon wrote: post #206
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.

I donno the robots in terminator seemed to have some self awareness. Why can’t we apply the same to cars?

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by fasterik »

runarberg wrote: post #198
alasdair_ wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

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.

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

#216

Post by burntwater »

rcpt wrote: post #176

Was there actually a fire? > fire hoses on the ground in the area of active firefighting It sounds like there wasn't.

Is that a relevant question? Seems to me that the issue is that the cars ran over fire hoses, and ignored firefighters. Whether or not there was actually fire anywhere nearby seems completely irrelevant.

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

#217

Post by tempestn »

> Cruise did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment made outside typical working hours.

As an aside, this seems like somewhat of an issue with modern journalism. I guess you have to get the article out asap to avoid being scooped, but then it ends up missing key information, like a statement from Cruise that might have been received if they'd been given a business day to respond. If you wait though, it's old news and no one cars about the added details.

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

#218

Post by heleninboodler »

mindcrime wrote: post #2

Less 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…

Interesting. A couple months ago, there were firefighters at my condo complex running a hose across the driveway into the building. I got past just before they ran the hose, but I stopped and asked them if they would be gone by the time I returned in about 30m, and they said "probably not, but if we're here you can just drive over the hose." That surprised me.

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

#219

Post by jalk »

runarberg wrote: post #198
alasdair_ wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

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

#220

Post by tempestn »

Zircom wrote: post #172
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.

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?

Even if one didn't accept that AGI will eventually be developed, I agree with you that "never" is too strong. Computers perform many tasks now that were once unthinkable, and I'm pretty confident they'll eventually drive cars well. Whether that time is remotely close however is another question.
Post reply on HN