sort of OT autonomous car fatality

[Kontact]

Unless the car swerved to hit the pedestrian, I have a hard time seeing how this was the fault of the computer system. The "driver" had full access to the brakes. I think the victim stepped out in front of a car that would have hit her no matter what was driving.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Some pretty high grade whataboutism going on in this one.

Whether this was avoidable or not in the software is just part of the larger issue that these cars will need to be programmed to make life or death decisions, including prioritizing in some cases who lives and who doesn't. Like a pedestrian outside a crosswalk.

But hey, let's use traffic deaths for cars driven by people to excuse one killed by a beta autonomous system. Because the streets can be places where we all serve as guinea pigs, right?

Only if the software performs as intended and still kills someone. But what the software (and the hardware) is intended to do and whether it performs as intended are two very distinct and separate issues. One is engineering and one is ethics. I dont understand why some people are freaked out about the prospect of the codifying (literally) of ethical decision-making. The alternative - what we have now- is no decision at all and leaving it to chance, since crashes all happen too fast for humans to make or act on any decision.

On the other hand I can understand people being uncomfortable with the reliability of the software, even though all the evidence indicates that humans are far more error-prone than computers.

[unterhausen]

I don't know about uber's cars, but Elon Musk is insisting they don't need lasers. No, they do need lasers.

This woman was either riding a bicycle or pushing one. I'm going with riding for now.

[goonster]

Originally Posted by saab2000

If the occupant has override capabilities I would assume the operator would be responsible for accidents as the operator presumably has the possibility to avoid the accident.

It's either a self-driving ("driverless") car, or it isn't.

Watching the car like a hawk, poised to perform some lifesaving intervention in a split second, is more exhausting than just driving.

The greatest danger happens when we're not sure what the machine will do, or how much the machine is in control. Is it in automatic, or manual? What mode is it in, and what does that do? (c.f. AF447) Is the anti-lock/stability control halfway off, or all the way off? Is there a driver in that car, or is it fully auto?

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

these cars will need to be programmed to make life or death decisions, including prioritizing in some cases who lives and who doesn't.

Strongly disagree. The car doesn't make a life or death decision, it is programmed to do A or B. If programmed well, the car will respond consistently given the same set of inputs; it doesn't have a choice, per se.

Indeed, there are powerful ethical issues, with life and death consequences in play, but they are on us, not the machines.

IMHO, everybody involved in this Uber project, who shrugs their shoulders and says "the first fatality was unavoidable, just a question of time" should have their engineering degrees rescinded.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by marciero

Only if the software performs as intended and still kills someone. But what the software (and the hardware) is intended to do and whether it performs as intended are two very distinct and separate issues. One is engineering and one is ethics. I dont understand why some people are freaked out about the prospect of the codifying (literally) of ethical decision-making. The alternative - what we have now- is no decision at all and leaving it to chance, since crashes all happen too fast for humans to make or act on any decision.

On the other hand I can understand people being uncomfortable with the reliability of the software, even though all the evidence indicates that humans are far more error-prone than computers.

The braking system fails and the car has to determine whether to kill a pedestrian to save the drivers life, or vice versa. Who programs that? Who's responsible? If the pedestrian, is the car company prioritizing car owners' lives over the lives of the public? If the public, who's going to buy a car that doesn't want to keep them safe?

This kind of programming is Pandora's box man.

[rwsaunders]

MIT's Technology Review published these articles a few years back regarding the ethics of programming a driverless car...making split second decisions of valuing the occupant more than the non-occupant, adult vs child, squirrels vs oncoming traffic, etc. Interesting questions indeed.

Here is an excerpt which is food for thought...Others believe the situation is a little more complicated. For example, Bryant Walker-Smith, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina who studies the legal and social implications of self-driving vehicles, says plenty of ethical decisions are already made in automotive engineering. “Ethics, philosophy, law: all of these assumptions underpin so many decisions,” he says. “If you look at airbags, for example, inherent in that technology is the assumption that you’re going to save a lot of lives, and only kill a few.”

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...ammed-to-kill/

https://www.technologyreview.com/new...cal-decisions/

[jimcav]

you'd think that 3 years later they would have actually had to do some programming for certain scenarios. even if just in "the lab" because they need to be to have the 3laws strong difference engine ready

Originally Posted by rwsaunders

MIT's Technology Review published these articles a few years back regarding the ethics of programming a driverless car...making split second decisions of valuing the occupant more than the non-occupant, adult vs child, squirrels vs oncoming traffic, etc. Interesting questions indeed.

Here is an excerpt which is food for thought...Others believe the situation is a little more complicated. For example, Bryant Walker-Smith, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina who studies the legal and social implications of self-driving vehicles, says plenty of ethical decisions are already made in automotive engineering. “Ethics, philosophy, law: all of these assumptions underpin so many decisions,” he says. “If you look at airbags, for example, inherent in that technology is the assumption that you’re going to save a lot of lives, and only kill a few.”

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...ammed-to-kill/

https://www.technologyreview.com/new...cal-decisions/

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

Originally Posted by jimcav

I'm sure they will discuss it on CNN when i get home if someone else hasn't been poisoned, or fired, or resigned to completly monopolize the news

Or there's even a dusting of snow.

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by goonster

IMHO, everybody involved in this Uber project, who shrugs their shoulders and says "the first fatality was unavoidable, just a question of time" should have their engineering degrees rescinded.

What should they do or say instead?


Unless a robot driver is able to break the laws of physics, there are always going to be accidents. The reaction time can be as fast as the speed of light, but brakes don't stop cars instantaneously, so some version of this accident was preordained.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

The braking system fails and the car has to determine whether to kill a pedestrian to save the drivers life, or vice versa. Who programs that? Who's responsible? If the pedestrian, is the car company prioritizing car owners' lives over the lives of the public? If the public, who's going to buy a car that doesn't want to keep them safe?

This kind of programming is Pandora's box man.

I'm pretty sure Mercedes-Benz, for example, has decided to prioritize passenger safety over public safety, with the rationale that the public would in fact end up being safer in the end. They reason that with more people buying cars that prioritize their own safety, more of these cars safer cars would be on the road, making the roads safer for the public.
But yes, a Pandora's box in the sense that, as rwsaunders points out, it takes all of these interesting and sometimes disturbing Trolley Problem-type ethical dilemmas out of the purely academic realm.

[soulspinner]

Originally Posted by Kontact

Unless the car swerved to hit the pedestrian, I have a hard time seeing how this was the fault of the computer system. The "driver" had full access to the brakes. I think the victim stepped out in front of a car that would have hit her no matter what was driving.

This. I'm in these cars every day. Unless the user disa
bled the system, something isn't right.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by jimcav

So I saw a scrolling news alert that a self driving uber hit a woman pushing a bicycle (hence the sort of OT) in AZ, apparently pushing a bike last night through an intersection. At work I can't access new sites (but can this forum--duh). A quick search on my phone said the uber had a "control driver" as back up. So I guess the conditions must have been bad for both the self-driving electronics and the human pilot to both miss seeing her. Just wondered if anyone had more details.

She wasn't in the intersection, is what I read, but walking across the road between intersections. Gotta wonder why she didn't see the car.

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by binxnyrwarrsoul

Or there's even a dusting of snow.

I haven't bought a HD antenaa and the only thing I've figured out how to add besides amazon prime and netflix was cnn2go, so yes, that is what has been on
and of course i was wrong, it was the cambridge analytica whisteblower last night: so i swtiched over to prime and watched "swiss army man" which i enjoyed

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by goonster

IMHO, everybody involved in this Uber project, who shrugs their shoulders and says "the first fatality was unavoidable, just a question of time" should have their engineering degrees rescinded.

Pretty much what Kontact said. The only vehicle that has zero possibility of hitting something (or someone) is one that never moves. We as a society have to decide on what cost/risk vs. benefit we are willing to accept for autonomous vehicles, but no matter how hard engineers try, the risks of autonomous vehicles can never be zero - although they may be made much less than for human drivers.

[Tony T]

Originally Posted by jimcav

I'm sure they will discuss it on CNN when i get home if someone else hasn't been poisoned, or fired, or resigned to completly monopolize the news

CNN?
The 24/7 "Stormy Daniels" channel?
They'll spend 10 minutes on the news and then get back to "Stormy"