Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
3132 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 538

Trusted

  Reply # 1420529 4-Nov-2015 10:50
One person supports this post
Send private message

Paul1977:
reven:
ubergeeknz: Of course the cop-out option is that in this hypothetical extreme situation, the vehicle hands control to the human driver.


the human would have less time to make a decision and probably end up just crashing causing more harm.

only situations I can really think of that the car couldnt avoid are 
- things falling off the back of trucks etc
- rockslides etc

pedestrians, other cars etc the automated cars should have enough sensors (well the google one's definitely appear to) to be fully aware of these and safely avoid any issue.


I'm not sure I agree. I think the biggest hazard the self-driving car needs to deal with are all the unpredictable human-driven cars.




them seem to be able to handle that pretty well.  sure if someone just decides to smash into your side, theres not a lot you can do, but the SDC would see this before a human would, so could
- slow down
- speed up
- change lanes to avoid
- prepare to be hit

3132 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 538

Trusted

  Reply # 1420531 4-Nov-2015 10:54
Send private message

ubergeeknz: Here's my prediction:

Self-drive cars will become main-stream.  First semi-auto (supervised) and then full auto, or maybe both at once for different circumstances.  It will take a good while as old vehicle stock is replaced by capable vehicles.

Nothing will happen for a while.  Once a critical mass is reached, vehicle safety will improve overall as self drive vehicles will generally drive within safe parameters, be more aware, not distracted, not in a hurry, etc, all the things which usually cause humans to have vehicle accidents.  Traffic should be better too since they won't be lane jumping, will better predict traffic flows, etc.

Then maybe there will be one of these weird and wonderful situations we are hypothesising, maybe a couple.  Swerve to avoid a person on the road, go over a blind cliff, or mow down some children due to unexpected road conditions (eg black ice) causing an inability to stop or steer. Bound to sooner or later, right?

It will be news for a week or two, maybe it will be considered a "scandal".  But everyone will move on when they realise it's an unsolvable problem, that a human would not have done better in all likelihood, and the benefits outweigh the downsides 100 to 1 or more.

Really, I think some are making a big deal out of nothing.  IMO if a vehicle is programmed and capable of avoiding 99% of accidents it will far outperform human drivers, even if in that 1% it manages to s**t the bed completely.


completely agree, but as a programmer you have to handle that situation. thats the what the discussion is about, you have to program instructions/logic for what the car should do but first you have to decide what that logic should be.

can't just leave

public void UnavoidableCrashScenario() {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}

 
 
 
 


Onward
10980 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4822

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1420535 4-Nov-2015 10:59
Send private message

I honestly believe that autonomous vehicles on public roads is going to go horribly wrong. I hope I am wrong but my gut tells me different.

One fear I have is there will be some out there who believe they know better than the developers and will hack their vehicles with disastrous results.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


2739 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1407

Subscriber

  Reply # 1420549 4-Nov-2015 11:06
3 people support this post
Send private message

I would expect a self driving car's primary goal to be to protect its occupants.
I certainly would not own or ride in a car that was programmed to kill my family for "the greater good".








Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

 

Thinking about signing up to BigPipe? Get $20 credit with my referral link.


1754 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 494


  Reply # 1420550 4-Nov-2015 11:08
Send private message

reven:
Paul1977:
reven:
ubergeeknz: Of course the cop-out option is that in this hypothetical extreme situation, the vehicle hands control to the human driver.


the human would have less time to make a decision and probably end up just crashing causing more harm.

only situations I can really think of that the car couldnt avoid are 
- things falling off the back of trucks etc
- rockslides etc

pedestrians, other cars etc the automated cars should have enough sensors (well the google one's definitely appear to) to be fully aware of these and safely avoid any issue.


I'm not sure I agree. I think the biggest hazard the self-driving car needs to deal with are all the unpredictable human-driven cars.




them seem to be able to handle that pretty well.  sure if someone just decides to smash into your side, theres not a lot you can do, but the SDC would see this before a human would, so could
- slow down
- speed up
- change lanes to avoid
- prepare to be hit


I agree that they are (or will be) better that humans at avoiding accidents, but I still think that most situations of unavoidable accidents will be the result of other human-driven vehicles (as opposed to things like rockslides etc).

5582 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2512

Subscriber

  Reply # 1420562 4-Nov-2015 11:27
Send private message

An autonomous machine should be designed to do what a person would, only better. This introduces an element of randomness into any ethical decision-making. One time the occupants might get it, another time the pedestrian children. Still better than the human average overall and the random ('human') aspect would make its occasional mistakes more acceptable. 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


452 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 92

Subscriber

  Reply # 1420599 4-Nov-2015 11:58
2 people support this post
Send private message

MikeB4: I honestly believe that autonomous vehicles on public roads is going to go horribly wrong. I hope I am wrong but my gut tells me different.

One fear I have is there will be some out there who believe they know better than the developers and will hack their vehicles with disastrous results.


How could it be any more disastrous than what we currently have?

People drive drunk or drugged.
People drive tired.
People get angry.
People drive without a licence.
People make bad decisions.

I could go on but this would be a rather long list.






Geoff E

1218 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 511


  Reply # 1420600 4-Nov-2015 11:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
andrew027: But surely these "ethical" decisions are contrary to the first two laws of robotics and a self-driving car having to make a choice between harming its occupants or harming other road users would irreparably damage its positronic brain?

Tsk. You never read the later books, then? The Zeroth Law?

I'm not sure a car choosing between injuring me by crashing into a power pole or injuring a pedestrian by driving up on the footpath would result in harm to humanity either way, unless the pedestrian was on the verge of creating a 100% effective cancer drug, or was a tyrannical world leader, etc. and these are things it would difficult for the car to know.

The first thing to work on shouldn't be "algorithmic morality" but reducing the number of accidents, which is surely the whole point of self-driving cars anyway. In the case of an accident that is truly "unavoidable", I'd expect the vehicle to protect the occupants. Laws will also need to be set for "driver" behaviour, e.g. must they still be paying attention to what's going on around them or can they read a book, or even fall asleep, while the car takes them from A to B? My cynical side says it will probably take a US lawsuit by a pedestrian or cyclist injured by a self-driving car to iron the laws out - is the "driver" or the manufacturer of the vehicle responsible?

Fully Operational
3342 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1087

Trusted
Vocus
Subscriber

  Reply # 1420607 4-Nov-2015 12:04
Send private message

andrew027: In the case of an accident that is truly "unavoidable", I'd expect the vehicle to protect the occupants.


See this makes sense, it is realistically the decision most humans would make in the split second leading up to the situation.  

Or how about a slider option from "prefer occupant safety" to "prefer safety of others", giving the "morality" choice to the operator of the vehicle?

3478 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 344

Trusted

  Reply # 1420613 4-Nov-2015 12:10
4 people support this post
Send private message

Or the vehicle manufacturers can choose where in the scale. But in the case of VW. They'll advertise as will protect you the most, but actually do the opposite. And in test conditions use a morality defeat device.




Previously known as psycik

NextPVR/OpenHAB: 
Gigabyte AMD A8 Brix --> Samsung LA46A650D via HDMI, NextPVR,OpenHAB with Aeotech ZWave Controller
Media:Chromecast v2, ATV4, Roku3, Raspberry PI temperature Sensors and Bluetooth LE Sensors,HDHomeRun Dual
Windows 2012 
Host (Plex Server/Crashplan): 2x2TB, 2x3TB, 1x4TB using DriveBender, Samsung 850 evo 512 GB SSD, Hyper-V Server with 1xW10, 1xW2k8, 2xUbuntu 16.04 LTS, Crashplan, NextPVR channel for Plex,NextPVR Metadata Agent and Scanner for Plex


Fully Operational
3342 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1087

Trusted
Vocus
Subscriber

  Reply # 1420619 4-Nov-2015 12:17
Send private message

davidcole: Or the vehicle manufacturers can choose where in the scale. But in the case of VW. They'll advertise as will protect you the most, but actually do the opposite. And in test conditions use a morality defeat device.


"The "premium" package includes a 10 speaker Bose sound system and the Morality algorithm is less likely to kill you in a life-or-death situation"

1392 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 460

Subscriber

  Reply # 1420620 4-Nov-2015 12:19
3 people support this post
Send private message

Self drive cars don't have to be perfect.
Current minimally accepted skill are low.

After all we are quite happy to allow 17 year olds with mates to cruise round.

A.

SJB

1028 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 215

Trusted

  Reply # 1420710 4-Nov-2015 12:47
One person supports this post
Send private message

As a software developer I am NEVER, EVER getting in a self drive car, taxi or bus.

And anyone who does or decides to buy one should be sectioned as soon as possible.

452 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 92

Subscriber

  Reply # 1420713 4-Nov-2015 12:50
6 people support this post
Send private message

SJB: As a software developer I am NEVER, EVER getting in a self drive car, taxi or bus.

And anyone who does or decides to buy one should be sectioned as soon as possible.


Well you should never get on an aircraft as well then.




Geoff E

3132 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 538

Trusted

  Reply # 1420729 4-Nov-2015 13:10
5 people support this post
Send private message

SJB: As a software developer I am NEVER, EVER getting in a self drive car, taxi or bus.

And anyone who does or decides to buy one should be sectioned as soon as possible.


remind me never to hire you :P

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Chow brothers plan to invest NZ$100 million in technology
Posted 24-Sep-2017 16:24


Symantec protects data everywhere with Information Centric Security
Posted 21-Sep-2017 15:33


FUJIFILM introduces X-E3 mirrorless camera with wireless connectivity
Posted 18-Sep-2017 13:53


Vodafone announces new plans with bigger data bundles
Posted 15-Sep-2017 10:51


Skinny launches phone with support for te reo Maori
Posted 14-Sep-2017 08:39


If Vodafone dropping mail worries you, you’re doing online wrong
Posted 11-Sep-2017 13:54


Vodafone New Zealand deploy live 400 gigabit system
Posted 11-Sep-2017 11:07


OPPO camera phones now available at PB Tech
Posted 11-Sep-2017 09:56


Norton Wi-Fi Privacy — Easy, flawed VPN
Posted 11-Sep-2017 09:48


Lenovo reveals new ThinkPad A Series
Posted 8-Sep-2017 14:37


Huawei passes Apple for the first time to capture the second spot globally
Posted 8-Sep-2017 10:45


Vodafone initiative enhances te reo Maori pronunciation on Google Maps
Posted 8-Sep-2017 10:40


Voyager Internet expand local internet phone services company with Conversant acquisition
Posted 6-Sep-2017 18:27


NOW Expands in to Tauranga
Posted 5-Sep-2017 18:16


Windows 10 Fall Creators Update coming Oct. 17
Posted 4-Sep-2017 14:10



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.