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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 13

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1421078 4-Nov-2015 18:21

nunz:
MikeB4:
nunz:
Rikkitic: This is a fascinating and serious subject and I was going to contribute, until I saw the stupid remark about cyclists. Grow up, people.

But surely that was a serious response. Sacrifice the one for the good of all. Kill a cyclist as you head for the side of the street to avoid a head on collision. Cyclists only have one passenger ( except tandom cycles where they have two passengers with a total cool factor only equal to a half a person in an autonomous car anyway) so that is always at least as good an option as any other and more often than not is less loss of life so is the best option.

Also any cyclist dumb enough to be peddling a machine with no autonomous accident avoiding capabilities deserves to die.

no one deserves to die

Mate - we need to start a whole new thread based on that reply alone - I can name a few people I would be more than happy to help shuffle off this mortal coil.

Yep.

I was thinking cyclists though, even if a very small minority can raise ones blood pressure

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1421079 4-Nov-2015 18:22

nunz: To those who posit it is an extreme position to worry about people hacking cars etc.
The future is already here.

It also raises questions re security, stability? Would you trust MS to provide the software for your car with their security record? How do you remove all personally identifiable information to stop peole tracking you and advertising to you based on where you go and who you visit and whom you are in proximity to?

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-hack-self-driving-cars-with-a-laser-pointer/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/07/hackers-trick-self-driving-cars-lidar-sensor
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/May/Pages/ResearchersHackIntoDriverlessCarSystemTakeControlofVehicle.aspx

It is why I believe autonomous/self drive vehicles are only for specific task eg Military,

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1421081 4-Nov-2015 18:25

reven: ....

luckily these situations should be very few and far between with all the sensors in the car and how aware of its surroundings they should be, so they should be able to safely stop in all but a few scenarios.

we're obviously not going to solve the issue, but its interesting to think about :)

you have a point - have you ever seen the Volvo adverts on their amazing stopping ability? If a truck can stop that fast - a car should be able to as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-giC24SxwE

Also I like an option that is a variant on a Table Saw safety device. The table saw - renowned for cutting off fingers - has a sensing device that as soon as something electrostatic - like a finger - it drops a big piece of metal into the blade stopping it instantly. Maybe an explosive driven spike straight into the road for an instant stop, while deploying air bags.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1421084 4-Nov-2015 18:28

MikeB4:
nunz: To those who posit it is an extreme position to worry about people hacking cars etc.
The future is already here.

It also raises questions re security, stability? Would you trust MS to provide the software for your car with their security record? How do you remove all personally identifiable information to stop peole tracking you and advertising to you based on where you go and who you visit and whom you are in proximity to?

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-hack-self-driving-cars-with-a-laser-pointer/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/07/hackers-trick-self-driving-cars-lidar-sensor
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/May/Pages/ResearchersHackIntoDriverlessCarSystemTakeControlofVehicle.aspx

It is why I believe autonomous/self drive vehicles are only for specific task eg Military,

I think NOT military - who wants to transport armies in a vehicle that the enemy can hack and then use to blow you up with your own gear :)

MadEngineer

4381 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2375

Trusted

#1421095 4-Nov-2015 18:44

I'll ask it: If you were somehow suddenly presented with a whole lot of pedestrians on the road in front of you and no way to stop except for, gee i dunno, driving yourself off a cliff, what would you do? Not even sure how such a situation could arise if you're paying attention and driving to the conditions.

The autonomous car should do the same.

If it were me, I'd continue to try top stop the car and hope that the pedestrians could sort themselves out.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1421096 4-Nov-2015 18:48

MadEngineer: I'll ask it: If you were somehow suddenly presented with a whole lot of pedestrians on the road in front of you and no way to stop except for, gee i dunno, driving yourself off a cliff, what would you do?

The autonomous car should do the same.

If it were me, I'd continue to try top stop the car and hope that the pedestrians could sort themselves out.

I would too, and so should the car. This thread goes down the track that every accident is death or deaths, thats far from the reality. You can hit some one at good speed and they live, or at slow speed and they don't. it's about avoidance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1421099 4-Nov-2015 18:58

nunz:
Rikkitic: This is a fascinating and serious subject and I was going to contribute, until I saw the stupid remark about cyclists. Grow up, people.

But surely that was a serious response. Sacrifice the one for the good of all. Kill a cyclist as you head for the side of the street to avoid a head on collision. Cyclists only have one passenger ( except tandom cycles where they have two passengers with a total cool factor only equal to a half a person in an autonomous car anyway) so that is always at least as good an option as any other and more often than not is less loss of life so is the best option.

Also any cyclist dumb enough to be peddling a machine with no autonomous accident avoiding capabilities deserves to die.

There it is again. The stupid button. This whole Grand Theft Auto attitude to road users who do not happen to be driving a ton of metal. There is no rivalry between cyclists and drivers. One does not have more rights than the other. One or the other is not a lesser being. Both are road users, with equal rights to be there and equal responsibilities to show a little courtesy to the other. Get over yourself.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MadEngineer

4381 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2375

Trusted

#1421110 4-Nov-2015 19:15

nunz:
Rikkitic: This is a fascinating and serious subject and I was going to contribute, until I saw the stupid remark about cyclists. Grow up, people.

But surely that was a serious response. Sacrifice the one for the good of all. Kill a cyclist as you head for the side of the street to avoid a head on collision. Cyclists only have one passenger ( except tandom cycles where they have two passengers with a total cool factor only equal to a half a person in an autonomous car anyway) so that is always at least as good an option as any other and more often than not is less loss of life so is the best option.

Also any cyclist dumb enough to be peddling a machine with no autonomous accident avoiding capabilities deserves to die.

you don't go out to "kill a cyclist" when presented with a situation of trying to avoid a head on collision. You try to avoid the head on collision while also tying your best to minimize the risk or the impact of collecting the cyclist - or at least employing some wishful thinking.

As a driver you should be constantly aware of your escape zones and you drive to the conditions when approaching a situation where there is none.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 508

Trusted

#1421112 4-Nov-2015 19:32

When they pass the motor law, can I still drive my red barchetta?

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1421130 4-Nov-2015 20:22

A self driving car has one job, the same as the driver of a vehicle today , that job being to send instructions to the vehicle in order to maintain the desired direction/route. In order to do this it must take feedback from the vehicle in terms of the available surface traction, vehicle weight, speed, hence momentum and the ability to perform such maneuvers. changes in any one of these factors mean the vehicle compromises or extends it's ability to turn swerve, slow or accelerate etc.

The difference between a human driver an an autonomous vehicle is that the human driver will assume risks, eg there probably isn't a patch of ice with a person lying on it just over the crest of this hill. A truly autonomous vehicle can not make such an assumption and hopefully won't, so yes it will slow down enormously to compensate for unseen risks such as hill crests ( till each vehicle gets a drone or crests get cameras).

Autonomous vehicles in the US such as the google car are hopelessly ( but quite rightly) cautious at intersections , over crests, around blind corners.

so I think we are jumping the gun here, only humans will put cars in a situation where this sort of choice has to be made.

Truly autonomous cars will have to slow to compensate to allow for erratic and random actions of pedestrians, asteroids, stray skydivers and anything else that arrives from out of the blue, and that was the job of a human driver also :)

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1421142 4-Nov-2015 20:48

Rikkitic:
nunz:
Rikkitic: This is a fascinating and serious subject and I was going to contribute, until I saw the stupid remark about cyclists. Grow up, people.

But surely that was a serious response. Sacrifice the one for the good of all. Kill a cyclist as you head for the side of the street to avoid a head on collision. Cyclists only have one passenger ( except tandom cycles where they have two passengers with a total cool factor only equal to a half a person in an autonomous car anyway) so that is always at least as good an option as any other and more often than not is less loss of life so is the best option.

Also any cyclist dumb enough to be peddling a machine with no autonomous accident avoiding capabilities deserves to die.

There it is again. The stupid button. This whole Grand Theft Auto attitude to road users who do not happen to be driving a ton of metal. There is no rivalry between cyclists and drivers. One does not have more rights than the other. One or the other is not a lesser being. Both are road users, with equal rights to be there and equal responsibilities to show a little courtesy to the other. Get over yourself.

my deepest apologies I just read what i wrote and realised how it could be mis-construed. Let me fix that now.

<ironic humoour>
But surely that was a serious response. Sacrifice the one for the good of all. Kill a cyclist as you head for the side of the street to avoid a head on collision. Cyclists only have one passenger ( except tandom cycles where they have two passengers with a total cool factor only equal to a half a person in an autonomous car anyway) so that is always at least as good an option as any other and more often than not is less loss of life so is the best option.

<farce>Also any cyclist dumb enough to be peddling a machine with no autonomous accident avoiding capabilities deserves to die. </farce>
</ironic humour>

Regards
Shane - an avid cyclist and motor cyclist, survivor of many accidents caused by car drivers and sometime cranky motorist who hates the complete disgregard for the law and red lights shown by cyclists.

Lastman

306 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 101

#1421301 5-Nov-2015 00:23

I think it will be quite a huge step in society to actually accept driver-less cars. The individual freedom of movement the car gives us is so ingrained in culture it may take a generation or two to accept it. Driver-less cars are a wholly cooperative system, whereas human control of a car is cooperative, yet we feel still able to act as individuals.

Acceptance will perhaps come easier through the gradual addition of features such as automated breaking and auto-pilot like functions.

jarledb

Webhead
3274 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1917

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1421305 5-Nov-2015 02:52

I think you are right Lastman, and that is happening already. Even budget priced cars are getting things like adaptive cruise control etc. I think we will see a gradual move towards self driving cars.

BTW: I don't know if everyone are aware, but we are not talking about advanced AI as such in self driving cars. Googles driverless car can only be driven on roads that have been mapped out in advance.

Teslas autopilot is fairly useless on unmarked roads, and they do better on roads that have already been mapped out. Teslas autopilot does work with a crowd sourced feedback from the people driving with it, where they obviously map out the roads and the behaviour of the cars getting better as the maps they have of areas get better.

Sources:

- Tesla's Autopilot is self-improving
- Google Driverless Car (Wikipedia)

I think many seem to believe its more AI involved in this than it actually is.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1421323 5-Nov-2015 07:03

Rikkitic:
There it is again. The stupid button. This whole Grand Theft Auto attitude to road users who do not happen to be driving a ton of metal. There is no rivalry between cyclists and drivers. One does not have more rights than the other. One or the other is not a lesser being. Both are road users, with equal rights to be there and equal responsibilities to show a little courtesy to the other. Get over yourself.

Its stupid to keep mentioning the "stupid button".

Batman

Mad Scientist
29827 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6089

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1421330 5-Nov-2015 07:30

MikeB4: The last thing you will want to see going down the Rimutaka Hill or travelling the Auckland motorway.

Apple is potentially worse. Force upgrade software. Then Plays U2/Nickelback loudly. Loads a map that refuses to take you to where you want to go, rather to the middle of nowhere, or a middle of a building. Will not move if your passenger has a Samsung. The cable is changed after a few years and you have to change all the cables in the car. If you buy 3rd party cable the car won't move. And to get more RAM and distance you have to pay exponential. When it breaks down you may only call an authorised serviceman who will suggest a new model car.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 13