Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1422376 6-Nov-2015 13:30

Paul1977: However, the technology will continue to evolve and it may not be long before they are capable of analyzing all variables and predicting all outcomes.

I think you entering the world of science fiction. Will these computers just be in cars or will they have solved all issues of world conflict, hunger, mortality and existence of god?

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1422377 6-Nov-2015 13:31

roobarb:
gzt: Autonomous vehicles will make better ethical decisions than humans currently do in regard to speed, road surface, weather conditions, etc.

All they can do is slow down and err on safety, then the driver will kick it into manual out of frustration.

Exactly how will the autonomous fire-engine and ambulance make these ethical decisions?

Fire and ambulance driving is a different set of parameters. These vehicles currently operate on a different protocol and other road users are largely aware of that protocol and respond appropriately.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#1422382 6-Nov-2015 13:37

roobarb:
Paul1977: However, the technology will continue to evolve and it may not be long before they are capable of analyzing all variables and predicting all outcomes.

I think you entering the world of science fiction. Will these computers just be in cars or will they have solved all issues of world conflict, hunger, mortality and existence of god?

Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact. I don't think the example I gave is something that isn't entirely possible within the next few decades.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1422385 6-Nov-2015 13:43

Garbage in garbage out. These algorithms are only as good as whoever writes them. Formula 1 with all their terabytes of telemetry data are then analysed with as few software for the race engineer and the driver to plan a race strategy of a two stop race vs a the stop race. For a computer to react to infinite possibilities ... the code writer should first try to solve the Grand Unification Theory. A closed "circuit" (road) is a different beast. Easily done.

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1422396 6-Nov-2015 14:03

Paul1977: Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact. I don't think the example I gave is something that isn't entirely possible within the next few decades.

You can analyse all variables and predict all outcomes as long as time is not an issue. Once you have a real time system you don't have that luxury. The human brain is vastly more complicated than any computer, but in reality it is just an estimating, associating and guessing machine. We literally don't have time to think. Thinking is a luxury when you have time, except in special cases, most of us can't walk and chew gum at the same time if you had to think about those activities hence they get pushed into the subconscious. For the most part, once you have learnt, driving falls into the subconscious and you react not by thinking but basing your response on experience. You will snap out of it in danger situations and start acting defensively, and when you can't think, then natural response is panic which is natures solution that it is better to do something rather than nothing. Often the only time you truly think when driving is planning an unfamiliar route or a particular overtaking manoeuvre.

Today's science fiction is often tomorrows science fact only for small values of often.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1422409 6-Nov-2015 14:16

Oh well, my stop-chutes will still work!

joker97: Just one thing. Braking performance depends on friction between tyre and road. Maximal tyre surface area in contact with road is needed for optimum braking performance. Manufacturer's recommended tyre pressure achieves that optimum contact patch.

Mike

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#1422413 6-Nov-2015 14:21

joker97: Garbage in garbage out. These algorithms are only as good as whoever writes them. Formula 1 with all their terabytes of telemetry data are then analysed with as few software for the race engineer and the driver to plan a race strategy of a two stop race vs a the stop race. For a computer to react to infinite possibilities ... the code writer should first try to solve the Grand Unification Theory. A closed "circuit" (road) is a different beast. Easily done.

Coming up with the Grand Unified Theory may well end up being done by a computer.

I read an interesting paper not long ago about how once humans get AI hardware and software up to human level (they estimated several decades from now), then it will be able to improve on itself at an exponentially increasing rate that would have it's intelligence and capabilities exceeding our own by orders of magnitude in a very short time. Stuuf that would make human intelligence look like an ant.

Can't remember what the paper was called, but quite scary stuff really.

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1422415 6-Nov-2015 14:26

Paul1977: Can't remember what the paper was called, but quite scary stuff really.

Was it "The Terminator"?

Do you remember when The Darleks were really terrifying until you realised you just needed to use the staircase.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#1422417 6-Nov-2015 14:29

roobarb:
Paul1977: Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact. I don't think the example I gave is something that isn't entirely possible within the next few decades.

You can analyse all variables and predict all outcomes as long as time is not an issue. Once you have a real time system you don't have that luxury. The human brain is vastly more complicated than any computer, but in reality it is just an estimating, associating and guessing machine. We literally don't have time to think. Thinking is a luxury when you have time, except in special cases, most of us can't walk and chew gum at the same time if you had to think about those activities hence they get pushed into the subconscious. For the most part, once you have learnt, driving falls into the subconscious and you react not by thinking but basing your response on experience. You will snap out of it in danger situations and start acting defensively, and when you can't think, then natural response is panic which is natures solution that it is better to do something rather than nothing. Often the only time you truly think when driving is planning an unfamiliar route or a particular overtaking manoeuvre.

Today's science fiction is often tomorrows science fact only for small values of often.

I 100% agree that time is the biggest issue in a situation like this. But with technological advances who's to say that in the coming years/decades that computers will not be able to analyse all variables in a situation in a microsecond that would take a human far longer? In those situation an advanced enough computer system would not need the luxury of time like we do (or certainly not anywhere near as much time).

Edit: Missing word.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#1422421 6-Nov-2015 14:35

roobarb:
Paul1977: Can't remember what the paper was called, but quite scary stuff really.

Was it "The Terminator"?

Do you remember when The Darleks were really terrifying until you realised you just needed to use the staircase.

Might have been The Terminator.

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1422422 6-Nov-2015 14:36

Paul1977: I 100% agree that time is the biggest issue in a situation like this. But with technological advances who's to say that in the coming years/decades that computers will not be able to analyse all variables in a situation in a microsecond that would take a human far longer? In those situation an advanced enough computer system would not the luxury of time like we do (or certainly not anywhere near as much time).

I hope the response is just controlled braking on the road without extreme swerving, and not get into fantastical ethical decision making.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#1422430 6-Nov-2015 14:42

roobarb:
Paul1977: I 100% agree that time is the biggest issue in a situation like this. But with technological advances who's to say that in the coming years/decades that computers will not be able to analyse all variables in a situation in a microsecond that would take a human far longer? In those situation an advanced enough computer system would not the luxury of time like we do (or certainly not anywhere near as much time).

I hope the response is just controlled braking on the road without extreme swerving, and not get into fantastical ethical decision making.

We can each check back on this thread in 30 years, and one of us will have to eat their hat.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1422439 6-Nov-2015 14:48

DizzyD:
Rikkitic:
There is a kind of anti-cyclist prejudice that emerges here from time to time. <.... snip .....>
Let's cut the stupid jokes about taking out cyclists because they are the targets with least human worth or the least protected so the easiest to squash. Bad taste is not the same as a sense of humour.

Maybe a topic for another thread. Cyclists play a major part in the design of a fully automated vehicle. This thread is about the designed morality of the car, and in certain rare instances the possibility of maybe taking out cyclists and/or pedestrians, maybe even the driver! Humoring a serious topic like this is a great way of making light of the discussion IMO. Learn to laugh instead of taking offence.

PS: I'm a cyclist.

Also using humour you can say things that would otherwise get you arrested - the possible exception being pedophilla jokes or anything disparaging of the USA Homeland security. By using humour to say something you actually get to stimulate peoples brain cells without the offence part stopping the discussion.

For example, cyclists - easy target because there is one of them, but tandom cycles have two. Unless it is a cycle powered by a greenie with his / her kids in a trailer then you can wipe out a whole family in one hit. Try coding that in your safety death choice algorithm.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1422440 6-Nov-2015 14:49

roobarb:
Paul1977: I 100% agree that time is the biggest issue in a situation like this. But with technological advances who's to say that in the coming years/decades that computers will not be able to analyse all variables in a situation in a microsecond that would take a human far longer? In those situation an advanced enough computer system would not the luxury of time like we do (or certainly not anywhere near as much time).

I hope the response is just controlled braking on the road without extreme swerving, and not get into fantastical ethical decision making.

I don't see it working if cars are not programmed to make ethical decisions.

Think how easy it will be to hijack/stop a car if self driving cars just hit the brakes if you stand in front of them. If I was a driver in this case I would be thinking of how to manoeuvre around the man in the street. The last thing I would want to do is stop and wait for him to get out of the road so that we can drive on.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1422443 6-Nov-2015 14:54

nunz:
For example, cyclists - easy target because there is one of them, but tandom cycles have two. Unless it is a cycle powered by a greenie with his / her kids in a trailer then you can wipe out a whole family in one hit. Try coding that in your safety death choice algorithm.

Or cyclist Mum, with baby in carrier. Lets just hope the cars algorithm is going to be able to work out that this is just not your everyday cyclist. And this cyclist is more important than the large dog that just walked into the road. Lets hope algorithm does not mistake dog for kid, because if it does then car may just swerve into cyclist+baby.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13