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 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Trusted

Vocus

#1421681 5-Nov-2015 13:48

DizzyD: I don't think its possible to have redundant power in a vehicle.

There is already both a battery and an alternator (in the case of internal combustion engines) and critical systems like airbags have capacitors so they can keep working after power is cut long enough to do their job. There's no reason the CPU, sensors couldn't have a backup power source in case of severe damage or failure in the main power system.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1421690 5-Nov-2015 14:04

ubergeeknz:
DizzyD: I don't think its possible to have redundant power in a vehicle.

There is already both a battery and an alternator (in the case of internal combustion engines) and critical systems like airbags have capacitors so they can keep working after power is cut long enough to do their job. There's no reason the CPU, sensors couldn't have a backup power source in case of severe damage or failure in the main power system.

Seperate LiON battery for redundant sensor pack 1, same for sensor pack 2, all chargeable by solar or motion

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1421699 5-Nov-2015 14:17

tdgeek:
ubergeeknz:
DizzyD: I don't think its possible to have redundant power in a vehicle.

There is already both a battery and an alternator (in the case of internal combustion engines) and critical systems like airbags have capacitors so they can keep working after power is cut long enough to do their job. There's no reason the CPU, sensors couldn't have a backup power source in case of severe damage or failure in the main power system.

Seperate LiON battery for redundant sensor pack 1, same for sensor pack 2, all chargeable by solar or motion

I suppose the human body is not very redundant. And has no backup solution in place anyway.

I think we now over analyzing it. As a minimum the system should be able to perform just as well as a human. Nothing more.

roobarb

709 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#1421705 5-Nov-2015 14:25

DizzyD: As a minimum the system should be able to perform just as well as a human. Nothing more.

Lets hope that human is Lewis Hamilton rather than Mr Bean.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1421708 5-Nov-2015 14:28

roobarb:
DizzyD: As a minimum the system should be able to perform just as well as a human. Nothing more.

Lets hope that human is Lewis Hamilton rather than Mr Bean.

You a Top Gear fan?

SaltyNZ

8885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9589

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1421710 5-Nov-2015 14:35

I don't believe hardware failures are the problem. Avoidance and/or mitigation of hardware failure is a solved problem. The problem will be software: it will have bugs. Some of those bugs will be directly responsible for accidents, and they will be fiendishly difficult to nail. Even current drive-by-wire systems are suspected of being the cause of several accidents, and those are far simpler than the kinds of software that will make the driving decisions.

The real problem, though, is security. Safety-critical-system car hacks have already been demonstrated. The response from car-makers is the same as the response from every other software vendor, right up until they have a PR disaster on their hands - "this is theoretical, nobody could really do that in real life, we have ISO 9001 and take all precautions yada yada..." But if you've got 5% of cars on the road with a remotely exploitable vulnerability there's practically no limit to the damage you can do, if you want to.

And since we can't keep the bad guys out of our normal computers - and governments keep trying to pass laws making them less and less secure - then trusting our actual lives to them seems insane. I may not be perfect, but I'm not going to wake up one morning and carry out orders to kill myself, my passengers, and anyone else nearby without even realising it.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

roobarb

709 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#1421713 5-Nov-2015 14:47

Lets hope that human is Rowan Atkinson rather than Mr Bean. :)

Batman

Mad Scientist
30015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1421736 5-Nov-2015 15:40

I believe Rowan totalled his million pound McLaren F1

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#1421851 5-Nov-2015 17:43

All I see changing with a shift to driverless AI is reaction time. Right now, human reaction times to a ball rolling on to the road followed by a five year old are abysmal. We simply can't react fast enough in many cases. That is not the case for driverless cars. They will be able to react in nanoseconds and avoid a much greater number of fatalities.

With appropriately programmed monitoring and avoidance software, an unavoidable crash is a very unlikely circumstance and I believe a mechanism to avoid the accident (swerving if space is available, braking, etc...) coupled with protection of the passengers would be sufficient given that in a similar situation a human driver would almost certainly cause more damage and injury.

There is no ethical issue here, a car will not have to decide who to kill because in every thought experiment I can conceive of a human would cause more damage.

MikeAqua

8036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3827

#1421858 5-Nov-2015 17:55

An autonomous car should stay on the road. Leaving the road is too unpredictable.

Autonomous cars could communicate with each other - sharing information on road and traffic conditions, using standard data sentences. Cars would have standard information from multiple perspective on the road ahead.

Broadcast alerts about hazards could be possible. For example if a child rushes between two parked cars toward the road, an alert could be broadcast by those cars.

Urgent alerts don't even need be networked. Using an acoustic ping would provide information. The direction of the ping and the Doppler effect could be used to fix the point of origin. The frequency might contain info about the type of hazard.

Mike

MikeAqua

8036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3827

#1421865 5-Nov-2015 18:13

Things an autonomous car may be able do to avoid or minimise a collision: -

Accelerate (avoidance only);
Sound horn and/or squeal tyres to alert a pedestrian;
Brake much sooner than a human (remember a modern car can do 100 - 0 in <50m);
Deploy parachutes (or some other means of braking without relying on the road surface);
Use differential braking to improve deceleration (e.g. 'snakey'), change heading or change orientation of the car;
Deploy external airbags (pedestrian impact mitigation);
Pretension seat belts;
Move headrest forward;
Manipulate other in car surfaces;
Optimise internal air bag deployment;
Open a port to avoid cabin pressurisation (hearing damage risk) when airbags deploy.
?decrease tyre pressure? (more resistance therefore faster deceleration with slightly flatter tyres).

Mike

HP

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

Batman

Mad Scientist
30015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1421980 5-Nov-2015 21:09

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.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1422029 5-Nov-2015 22:39

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.

The ideal car will run bald tyres on dry days, aka slicks

Batman

Mad Scientist
30015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1422049 5-Nov-2015 23:10

Depends on what compound is at the bald patch

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1422212 6-Nov-2015 10:10

Is there really a market for cars that can drive people to work/home every day? I do like the idea of a car that can drive me home from the pub/kids to school and back etc.. but I don't think I will ever really want to own such a car.

Personally I like driving. I refuse to own even an automatic. Where is the fun in that.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13