Inmate Central

Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome.

Return to Inmate Central

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?

107.77.209.230
Posted on March 25, 2017 at 08:31:25
3+4=5
 Reading about self driving car accidents..
Anyway, MO the 'self driving car' is in the same league as 'flying cars'.
Back in the 1950's, all the talk about flying cars.. and where are they?
I think self driving cars are the new flying cars.

A lot of money is being spent, mainly due to no one wanting to be left out if they do succeed.
But I think they are doomed. (unless they really do come up with an AI capable of human levels of interaction)
Self driving cars will always be too damn stupid to work well.

I personally think the real self driving car 'killer' will be the lawsuits against the big pockets of the companies.
One of the most lucrative aspects of accident lawyers is being able to sue somebody with actual money. So ordinary owners? nah. But the parent companies? Hell yes!. So IMO the thing which will bury self driving cars are lawsuits from accidents over who is at fault.
Certainly the people who make the Ai responsible for driving the car!

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?, posted on March 25, 2017 at 08:54:05
fredtr
Audiophile

Posts: 1987
Location: Phoenix
Joined: January 4, 2005
 Wait for the lawyers to be replaced by software, let them battle it out.

 

RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?, posted on March 25, 2017 at 09:49:23
waynes
Audiophile

Posts: 127
Location: New Jersey
Joined: December 23, 2001
 3+4=5,

I kinda hope you're right, but sadly, I don't think you are.

The technology (at an affordable price point) needed for self-driving cars is more-or-less here (flying cars - not so much - either in the 1950s or now).

There is a lot of effort and money pouring into perfecting LIDAR (light detection and ranging) technology, one of the enabling technologies for self-driving cars. Companies with any serious aspirations toward developing self-driving cars are gobbling up tech start-ups having LIDAR technology.

I think the transition will be one of the more difficult issues; that is, the period of time when we have driver-less and human-piloted autos on the road at the same time. During that period of time, advanced AI would undoubtedly prevent accidents. However, in an environment in which most/all cars are driverless, advanced AI is probably less important.

Perhaps it will be phased in by restricting travel on certain roads or lanes to one or the other type of car.

Your point about lawsuits is well taken. Perhaps lobbyists will persuade Congress that the development of driverless cars is important enough that legislation is enacted to deal with the issue (e.g., place limits on liability, etc).

It will take awhile, but I would be surprised if we don't see driver-less cars on the road within 15-20 years.


 

So the AI will be ready for all possible scenarios? , posted on March 25, 2017 at 12:51:01
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
 I'm not persuaded.

Bear in mind that I am a systems analyst, and a trainer and tutor of systems analysts.

Even the USN's AEGIS system is still not perfected.


Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger


 

My thought is non self drivers will endlessly 'do' things to self drivers.., posted on March 25, 2017 at 13:13:37
3+4=5
 Say I know for a fact the car I am going to cut in front of is a self driver. Then I CAN mercilessly cut in front of it, Since I KNOW it will stop, not maybe stop.
When regular drivers begin to understand the entertainment value of things one can do to mess with self driving cars...
It will be fun. and carnage. and fun.

 

RE: So the AI will be ready for all possible scenarios? , posted on March 25, 2017 at 13:26:00
waynes
Audiophile

Posts: 127
Location: New Jersey
Joined: December 23, 2001
 All possible scenarios? Of course not, Tim. That is probably impossible. But, let me ask - should that be a requirement?

How beneficial would it be for society at large if auto accidents were reduced by say 50%, 75%, or even 25%? How many lives would be saved? Drunk driving and its foreseeable and sometimes devastating outcome becomes a thing of the past.

And with respect to AEGIS, well ... it's considerably tougher to acquire, track, and intercept an in-bound missile than identify an erratically operating or off-course auto :-)

We'll see.

 

Agreed, posted on March 25, 2017 at 13:51:23
JDK
Audiophile

Posts: 19671
Location: Sydney
Joined: June 26, 2000
 Legal issues and insurance companies will stop the self driving car for decades to come.

Until the questions of responsibility are fully addressed in law they are just a dream.


Trying to hide from entropy
John K

 

RE: So the AI will be ready for all possible scenarios? , posted on March 25, 2017 at 15:24:55
JDK
Audiophile

Posts: 19671
Location: Sydney
Joined: June 26, 2000

This stuff is being thought about.

Self driving car researchers are already saying that cyclists pose a real problem because of their high speeds and often narrow profile and ability to hide behind/beside other larger vehicles.

And then there is this guy .....
It would be funny if not so thought provoking.



Trying to hide from entropy
John K

 

RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?, posted on March 25, 2017 at 15:34:26
waynes
Audiophile

Posts: 127
Location: New Jersey
Joined: December 23, 2001
 Here's a link that addresses some of the issues being discussed, guys.

http://www.iii.org/issue-update/self-driving-cars-and-insurance

Wayne

 

RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?, posted on March 25, 2017 at 15:38:53
rditmars
Audiophile

Posts: 6852
Location: Boulder, CO
Joined: May 22, 2003
 Commercial drivers will be the first to go. Losing the driver saves money. A driverless truck has already delivered a test load of beer from Ft. Collins to Colorado Springs without the driver in the truck intervening.

Will the AI be any more dangerous than a sleepy driver?
*
"We are as gods and might as well get good at it." - Stewart Brand

 

RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?, posted on March 25, 2017 at 15:47:03
waynes
Audiophile

Posts: 127
Location: New Jersey
Joined: December 23, 2001
 You are probably correct about that.

In addition to your point about $$$, consumer acceptance (i.e., unease with riding along in a driver-less vehicle) is expected to be one of the key stumbling blocks to widespread use of this technology. In the case of trucking, no passenger will be present, so an occupant's "unease" is a non-issue.

 

AI would be dangerous!, posted on March 25, 2017 at 17:06:17
Rod M
Web Geek

Posts: 16246
Location: So. California
Joined: March 1, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 I believe it was a film that looked at the ethical issues of AI. For example, take driver avoidance of an accident. A person walks in front of you on a busy street. It's too late to brake. You could swerve right, but you'd jump the curb and run over people on the sidewalk. If you go left, you crash into a car full of children and might knock them into oncoming traffic causing a head on collision. So the AI program deems the least undesirable option is to just run over the pedestrian.

For freeway driving, auto-pilot would be nice though I doubt that I'd ever truly trust it.


-Rod

 

There's more to car technology than self driving., posted on March 25, 2017 at 17:27:31
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 An impressive battery of technological assists are increasingly becoming standard in new cars.

Audio alarms when vehicle deviates from lane, great for Grandpa not being alerted by the screaming faces of those lives in the other vehicle he is about to smash head on into.

Obstacle detection, emergency braking, all sort of things.

The car isn't driving, that responsibility stays where it is, it's just getting better helping.

Same goes with for handling ... heck these days someone with $1Million to burn can not only buy that Supercar, but drive it too!




 

But there will be unease for everybody on the highway, next to the highway, , posted on March 25, 2017 at 17:38:48
JDK
Audiophile

Posts: 19671
Location: Sydney
Joined: June 26, 2000
 A driverless truck full of beer crashes into a car.
There is no truck driver.
Who takes responsibility for the crash?
Who pays the victims?

Maybe it gets decided that because driverless vehicles are statistically safer than driven vehicles, the beer company's truck insurer will agree insure the driverless fleet AND accept the liability in all accidents without argument - Great! Everybody will save some money because there will be fewer accidents.

BUT what if there is civil action? - Who will the Judge decide was in control of the truck at the time of the accident? The beer company or the vehicle builder, or the software company that designed the driverless tech?

Will we end up with a whole new Ralph Nader thing? Hundreds of dead pedestrians and cyclists killed by driverless vehicles while the car companies say it's fine, because even though their driverless vehicles are killing them, there are fewer being killed than in the old days by drivers?


Trying to hide from entropy
John K

 

RE: My thought is non self drivers will endlessly 'do' things to self drivers.., posted on March 25, 2017 at 17:40:36
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 To say nothing of the entertainment value of hearing news reports of how some self driving moron got served a hefty ticket from an all human cop who nabs him getting his jollies just so.


 

How would a human handle the situation any better?..., posted on March 25, 2017 at 17:44:19
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12383
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
 ...I've seen human drivers simultaneously enter two of the three scenarios you describe. The difference right now is that ultimate responsibility most clearly lies with the human driver due to current legal statutes. The real issue seems more legal than ethical.

 

RE: But there will be unease for everybody on the highway, next to the highway, , posted on March 25, 2017 at 17:56:07
waynes
Audiophile

Posts: 127
Location: New Jersey
Joined: December 23, 2001
 Yes, all stake holders and anyone that has given this some thought is aware of the issues and disaster scenarios.
But the writing is on the wall and legislation is already being passed.
Read the link that I posted earlier.

I fail to see what difference the car companies' line is about deaths resulting from driver-less cars. If less people die, it's a good thing, isn't it? Is it somehow worse if you are killed by a driver-less car than a car with a driver?


 

RE: How would a human handle the situation any better?..., posted on March 25, 2017 at 18:11:42
Rod M
Web Geek

Posts: 16246
Location: So. California
Joined: March 1, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 Ok, you're right. How about another?

A woman with a baby is walking in front of your car. Your choices on a two lane road are to go left and hit a car head on, hit the woman and baby or go right and drive off a cliff.

AI would choose driving off the cliff because one life is worth less than two, right?

-Rod

 

Agree to a point, but WHO kills you is still important, posted on March 25, 2017 at 18:18:30
JDK
Audiophile

Posts: 19671
Location: Sydney
Joined: June 26, 2000
 Unless some massive no blame insurance and compensation scheme starts so that responsibility is no longer critical.




Trying to hide from entropy
John K

 

Uber suspends self-driving car program after Arizona crash: March 25, 2017, posted on March 25, 2017 at 18:25:18
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002



 

RE: How would a human handle the situation any better?..., posted on March 25, 2017 at 19:31:15
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "I've seen human drivers simultaneously enter two of the three scenarios you describe"

Priceless!!! LOL


 

The AI would handle it better due to reaction time of humans., posted on March 25, 2017 at 20:29:52
3+4=5
 I would say the AI car would be able to stop in time, most of the time. Unless the person deliberately jump in front at the last moment.

What I wonder about is stuff like road kill? Is a self driving car going to stop for a dead raccoon in the road in front of the car? How about a rock or a small log?

I can see in NYC, light changes, pedestrians do not stop walking. No car is going to nudge them! Until no one wants to walk, the self driving cars are stuck. Period.
And how DO self driving cars know the light changed? or an arrow for turns?

 

I would definitely hit the woman illegally crossing the road, posted on March 25, 2017 at 20:43:42
3+4=5
 The baby is innocent. but the babies death is the problem of the Mother.
If I had any choice, I would 'save' the most innocent party

Now in the scenario, if I was really speeding like crazy, By my rules, I should drive off the cliff. If I am driving safely, and the woman jumps out of some bushes.. Blammo.. She is dead raccoon.
I would never ever drive head on into a car going the other way.that person is totally innocent.
The woman crossing is not that innocent. She has a requirement to LOOK before crossing... At a minimum.

And.. The 'baby' may be a doll, or a cat or dog, or even a stuffed animal.
How would anyone confirm the object was a baby?.. in time to decide?
And the other car may have five babies in it? How do you know?
Plus the woman may be trying to commit suicide? Why would I choose to kill myself? or another innocent person to save some idiot trying to get run over?

So, for all these reasons, I would try to avoid the woman as best I could without hitting another car, or driving off the cliff. But if the hit is unavoidable, then so be it. She is toast.

 

RE: How would a human handle the situation any better?..., posted on March 25, 2017 at 21:12:21
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12383
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
 So the AI drives off the cliff because this minimizes (certain) loss of life. What does the "ethical" human do differently assuming it can react quickly enough to make a decision and effectively act on it?

I believe the "typical" human driver would instinctively swerve left or right to avoid the pedestrian. In one instance one human life is imperiled. In the other, at least two lives are imperiled, maybe more. Since I don't know the probability of a left swerve vs a right swerve, all I can assume is that both are non zero so the average human imperilment with the human driver is >1 while the imperilment with AI =1, a slightly better long term outcome so AI is an improvement over the human driver.

 

The technology permitting cars to sense traffic signals is here now..., posted on March 25, 2017 at 21:18:52
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12383
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
 ...as is ability for signals to sense and communicate with cars...and cars communicating with other cars as to position, velocity etc. We just need infrastructure improvements...not likely soon in current political environment.

 

My view on AI itself, is that taking away human responsibility for some decisions is a bad idea., posted on March 25, 2017 at 21:57:52
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
 You would need to read "Computer Power and Human Reason" to see where I am coming from.

Mind you this problem of believing the measurements / hypothesis tests / drug tests / intelligence .... predates digital computing. :-)

GIGO, let alone bad assumptions in the test design.


Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger


 

LOL ...... , posted on March 25, 2017 at 22:16:43
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
 I recall vividly the reaction of the medical profession to "Casemix".

My comment at a social & family event, to a very angry doctor was "Gee, wait until we start measuring the lawyers!"

:-)

I'm a management scientist, and a measurement skeptic to boot.




Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger


 

RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?, posted on March 26, 2017 at 00:24:27
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 Do some research on the LEVELS of 'self driving' / 'Autonomous Driving'.

Basically, there are 5 levels from something like Cruise Control all the way to NO driver intervention needed.

Most are at most, level 2, with a few forays into level 3.

I think SAE issued some documents on this subject.

The Tesla requires a driver.
Too much is never enough

 

So the person who wants to kill you just has to stand in the road?, posted on March 26, 2017 at 06:09:13
3+4=5
 Part of the problem with simplified notions of moral and logical choices do not work. Humans will find ways to bend the rules to fit whatever they want.
So in my case, the woman with the baby deliberately finds a spot on the road and waits, until YOU come along. Then all she has to do is jump out and Kaboom your car kills you for her,

 

If she suddenly jumps out she dies..., posted on March 26, 2017 at 06:32:19
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12383
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
 ...AI won't be circumventing physics, momentum and all that other real-world stuff.

 

RE: I would definitely hit the woman illegally crossing the road, posted on March 26, 2017 at 08:53:24
srdavis2000
Audiophile

Posts: 10707
Location: Deep South
Joined: January 11, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 16, 2004
 Most logical post. People aren't going to kill themselves on purpose in most scenarios no matter what the outcome. That's what I think is reality.

 

RE: The technology permitting cars to sense traffic signals is here now..., posted on March 26, 2017 at 09:35:11
bcowen
Audiophile

Posts: 1076
Location: North Carolina
Joined: December 19, 2015
 I wouldn't live much longer with AI making a decision based on a traffic signal input. I exit my neighborhood onto a busy 4 lane road via a traffic light. Drivers on the 4 lane road (with a 50 mph speed limit) routinely fly through that intersection at speeds well in excess of 50 mph regardless of what color the light is in their direction. If you don't look after the light turns green and wait for the light runner to come barreling through, you'd be toast. Life expectancy? Maybe a week.

Only way this could work is if ALL cars were running on AI, and the AI control could not be disabled. That would piss off a lot of drivers on this particular 4 lane road. :)

 

The problem is most people do not think anything out.., posted on March 26, 2017 at 11:46:42
3+4=5
 I think the "average" person would swerve hard right, WITHOUT knowing the cliff was the wrong choice. And drive right over the edge AS they realize "SHIT!! I drove off a cliff!!"

It would take a smart person fully 'awake' to make the correct choice and not kill themselves, but just run the woman down.
"awake' means actually driving. Not blabbing to the passenger, or on the phone, or not daydreaming, or sight seeing.. But seeing a car coming the the way, and knowing they were on the edge of a cliff.

Most of the panic braking is taken up by time to realize one needs to stop. For a person paying attention, this time is way less than for the person not paying attention.

 

And the danger of expecting the 'whatever' to do it for one. Even when it is clearly failing to do so, posted on March 26, 2017 at 11:56:05
3+4=5
 Endless stories of people failing to react when technology fails. They often just stand there waiting (to die) instead of saving themselves because they expect the thing to work right.
They just do not react to the failure in time.
When they could have, If they had just been paying attention.

The latest is the snowbank and commuter train utube video. Video of a train coming in. everyone can SEE the snow is covering the tracks. Yet not one person runs away in advance. They just stand there and get plastered with the wave of snow created by the train. Idiots one and all. But totally what really happens.
Not one person put two and two together that the snow was about to come flying at them as the train hit it.

 

well Monsanto got the legal 'free pass' on all GMO fails.. So car co.s might too, posted on March 26, 2017 at 12:01:34
3+4=5
 The company Monsanto managed to get a law passed freeing them of any liability if GMO stuff goes South. (And that is a hell of a sweet deal)
So I guess the automotive companies can get the same sort of deal.

 

RE: The problem is most people do not think anything out.., posted on March 26, 2017 at 12:16:20
Rod M
Web Geek

Posts: 16246
Location: So. California
Joined: March 1, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 Your logic is excellent even if your math is different.

The primary difference between AI and human decision making is self preservation. The average person will not weigh injury on others versus themselves when making a forced decision with little or no time to consider all the consequences.

I was also thinking the same thing about the quick move to the right and off the cliff when folks are distracted. How many people drive into ditches avoiding a dog or cat? I'll bet that it's not uncommon.

It also reminds me of driving on a 2 lane highway in Idaho. While cruising at the normal speed of the locals, 80 mph, I noticed a deer on the side of the road in the distance, just standing there. My first thought was that this animal would bolt across the road as I lifted my foot off the accelerator and naturally slowed to 50-60 mph as I closed in on the deer. And of course, as I got closer, the fool bolted across the road. Had I not slowed a bit, I would have hit him or veered off the road.

One more hypothetical also crossed mind. Your choice to hit the woman and baby is correct assuming that self preservation is number one. Does that decision change depending on the obstacle? What if that woman was your wife or daughter versus an old homeless woman?


-Rod

 

RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ?, posted on March 26, 2017 at 18:49:55
painter27
Audiophile

Posts: 5057
Location: wi.
Joined: January 7, 2003
 The dumbing "farther" down of drivers.

 

Depends id 'ex-wife' LOL or druggie daughter who would steal anything.. vs:, posted on March 26, 2017 at 19:23:34
3+4=5
 VS say my daughter is someone like Melania Trump? I would not kill her, I would drive off the cliff (her live is way more than mine, and I am old.). Or like Chelsea Clinton? same end.. off the cliff.

Say my daughter was a druggie prostitute who just got out of jail on bail for killing her dope addict/pimp husband and two children..(but she says she does not even remember what happened, even though she was covered with about a gallon of blood, and the gun was in her hands.) While she was high on six different illegal drugs. The newborn addict baby was the dope dealers..? I would run her over.. no problem. (though the police might think I arranged it on purpose.. So it would be difficult no matter what. DAs love to put folks in jail for even remotely possible scenarios..
(So lucky lucky I have no doper prostitute daughter I want dead. LOL)

As the person in the road who is in the moral dilemma is unknown. I return to the notion the person on the road is responsible for herself. Period. When she decided to be in the roadway, that is her deal. Not mine. And as I wrote, she may even be trying to commit suicide. Why would I kill myself to save some fool to stupid to not be standing in the middle of the road?
I certainly would try to stop. and would be perfectly wiling to ruin my tires trying to stop.
As for the so called baby. (since in the split second I have to choose?) I would not assume it was a baby. It could be a doll, or an animal, or a stuff toy. But first of all the child is HER responsibility, not mine.
If she wants to carry her baby out into danger, that is on her. not me.

I do not believe in any nanny state. If someone else wants to save the World at their own expense? Not my problem. The nanny folk are total fucking idiots IMO.

 

They're Here, posted on March 27, 2017 at 09:09:43
Inmate51

 

"Only way this could work is if ALL cars were running on AI, and the AI control could not be disabled.", posted on March 29, 2017 at 08:39:26
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
 Well, that's impossible, isn't it!




Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger


 

What we need is:, posted on March 29, 2017 at 10:13:38
Inmate51
 What this world needs is government-mandated non-bypassable systems in cars and - especially - pickup trucks which will prevent morons/idiots/yahoos from zoomin' down the highway and coming within feet of taking off the back left corner of a vehicle they want to pass at 75 or 80 miles an hour (which would then send the passed vehicle into whatever object/creek/drop-off is on their right).

What the hell is wrong with some people on the highway? They seem to think they're on some NASCAR track and think it's cool to come as close as possible without actually causing a major/fatal accident.

Morons. Idiots. Yahoos. Jackasses.

AND, we should have rearview cameras and object sensors which automatically record such moronic behavior and automatically send it to the nearest law enforcement agency. The technology is here now.

THEN we'd be getting somewhere, safety-wise.

Y'all have a pleasant day on the highway!

:)

 

"Well, that's impossible, isn't it!"...no, not really..., posted on March 30, 2017 at 06:17:05
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12383
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
 ...that's what "BIG government" is for.

FWLIW, I expect when implemented, good AI will be able to safely handle all road situations including the transition period better than ANY human driver. Probably <10yrs away:....I hope! Encountered two a*^hole drivers yesterday. At least one a day. Inadvertently, I might even be one.

 

Page processed in 0.045 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]