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

Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#31

Post by dman »

sschueller wrote: post #28

Two driverless cars are about to crash into each other on a tight mountain pass (maybe a bug that couldn't for see the accident). There are 3 possible outcomes: 1. Car 1 and Car 2 crash into each other killing all passengers. 2. Car 1 with 3 passengers drives of the cliff, car 2 with 1 passenger survives. 3. Car 2 with 1 passenger drives of the the cliff, car 1 with 3 passengers survives. The cars can communicate wit…

What do you think happens in this situation currently with human drivers?

Are we holding machines to different standards than we hold each other?

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#32

Post by olalonde »

jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but another alternative would be to write laws that are meant to be literal and enforced 100% of the time.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#33

Post by tclark225 »

jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I definitely agree with this, but how could you specifically change the laws in this case such that they are still, by some measure, "fair" and "just"? Most people would probably agree that there is no reason to adhere to the letter of driving laws all the time. Speeding on an empty highway to get somewhere more quickly is mostly harmless. Running a red light in a dangerous neighborhood might be safer than waiting. To the point of the "real" laws, such violations are probably most often prosecuted when they result in danger to the driver or others. You could certainly generalize these examples from driving to a variety of other laws.

I guess the question is, you can beat the drum about this, but to what tune? What's the answer? How could a self-driving car decide when it is okay to break traffic rules without a certain level of human discretion? How could the laws be re-written such that the effect is the same?

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#34

Post by teraflop »

Flimm wrote: post #20
gregwtmtno wrote: post #6

I think the accident statistics are a little misleading because as far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Google only operates its driverless cars in good weather conditions. Not that Google doesn't have good reasons for doing so, but the safety of these vehicles might look different if they were operated in the rain and snow.

They also only work in areas where Google already has "very detailed maps of the roads and terrain", kind of like invisible train tracks. ( http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intel... )

Bear in mind that the phrase you quoted is from a third party, not someone who actually works on the project. And it's from four years ago.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#35

Post by joeclark77 »

fizzbatter wrote: post #18
seibelj wrote: post #2

I'm a big self-driving cars skeptic. Expecting humans to "drive less idiotic" is basically saying that google's cars won't work until human drivers are banned. Driving is something of an art, and it's full of edge cases. So many edge cases. I'll just keep reading articles that say they are 5 years away, just as I did 5 years ago, and the armchair futurists will keep dreaming...

> I'll just keep reading articles that say they are 5 years away, just as I did 5 years ago, and the armchair futurists will keep dreaming... I'm quite surprised that you can be a skeptic on the concept as a whole. Being skeptical about the given timeframes is perfectly reasonable (and probably correct), but humans do so, so many things terribly. We have automated away so many tasks in our world, both for efficiency…

Cars give us freedom. The reason that technocrats love "self-driving" cars is the same reason they love trains of all kinds: it means that "the system" controls who may go where, and when. A lot of us are skeptical of self-driving cars because a lot of their advocates want the next step to be banning private citizens from driving, which you've just confirmed, thanks.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#36

Post by beambot »

gregwtmtno wrote: post #6

I think the accident statistics are a little misleading because as far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Google only operates its driverless cars in good weather conditions. Not that Google doesn't have good reasons for doing so, but the safety of these vehicles might look different if they were operated in the rain and snow.

Or Google could just chose not operate their cars in rain and snow -- ever, or at least not until they're sufficiently safe. The safety strawman you suggest (that safety in rain and snow is somehow necessary) doesn't need to exist, nor do the cars need to be a panacea to provide incredible value.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#37

Post by danharaj »

rasur wrote: post #27
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

This. A Million times this. However I fear the subtlety will be lost on the majority, as we continue to construct our own cages around ourselves.

Most people are given a very, very stupid idea of what the law is from the very same institutions whose authority is derived from the law being treated as a real object external from human subjectivity that has real power over humans. An education that provides a realistic comprehension of laws and how they really work is dangerous; demystifying legal power and demystifying politics makes for a conscious, more autonomous body politic. Let's not blame people for their cages: The cages were put up while they were least able to contest them.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#38

Post by geofft »

olalonde wrote: post #32
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but another alternative would be to write laws that are meant to be literal and enforced 100% of the time.

That doesn't serve justice, unless you have an actual way to enforce those laws 100% of the time. Theft is illegal, but there are ways for a rich banker to steal money that are undetectable, whereas a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is much more obvious.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#39

Post by ovulator »

sschueller wrote: post #28

Two driverless cars are about to crash into each other on a tight mountain pass (maybe a bug that couldn't for see the accident). There are 3 possible outcomes: 1. Car 1 and Car 2 crash into each other killing all passengers. 2. Car 1 with 3 passengers drives of the cliff, car 2 with 1 passenger survives. 3. Car 2 with 1 passenger drives of the the cliff, car 1 with 3 passengers survives. The cars can communicate wit…

Do the cars have a "drive forward at all costs" programmed into them?

The very reasonable and very logical assumption for the program to make is simply stop the vehicle, or reverse course until it finds a path it can take forward again.

Why would a car take into account the amount of human lives? If something is going cause the car to collide with something else it will decide if it can avoid that obstacle and do so, either by swerving or stopping.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#40

Post by [deleted] »

teraflop wrote: post #34
Flimm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also only work in areas where Google already has "very detailed maps of the roads and terrain", kind of like invisible train tracks. ( http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intel... )

Bear in mind that the phrase you quoted is from a third party, not someone who actually works on the project. And it's from four years ago.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN