ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cars

View Poll Results: Driverless cars will become mandatory by 2050
Yes they will 30 22.39%
No they won't 64 47.76%
It will take longer 22 16.42%
Your poll options suck 36 26.87%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 1st February 2017, 11:36 AM   #121
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,487
If there isn't a manual override a lot of people won't feel comfortable. If there is a manual override a lot of people will cause accidents.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 11:44 AM   #122
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
If there isn't a manual override a lot of people won't feel comfortable.
A lot of them might also feel dead. The point of a manuel override is if the computer does something dangerous, malfunctions or becomes inoperative.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 02:55 PM   #123
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,309
Will self driving cars have a 'sunday driver' mode for those people who don't like being drivers/passengers travelling at over half the speed limit? And if so, will the cars be programmed to periodically pull over to let the trailing train of cars past whilst in that mode?
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.

Last edited by alexi_drago; 1st February 2017 at 03:02 PM.
alexi_drago is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 06:40 PM   #124
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,487
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
A lot of them might also feel dead. The point of a manuel override is if the computer does something dangerous, malfunctions or becomes inoperative.
Which would be determined by the human in the car
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2017, 07:38 AM   #125
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,743
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
At a minimum, that's what we need today, but that's a bug, not a feature.

They're working on it.

If the cars cannot perform safely without external communication, they won't be allowed on the road. Everyone knows that external communication can go down for various reasons. If the cars become unsafe when that happens, the cars are unsafe. At the very least, they have to be able to get themselves safely off the road.

Today's autonomous vehicles, even the best of them, can't do that. The question is whether or not they ever will.

The question comes down to whether human-like intelligence is required to drive. By "human like intelligence" I mean the ability to interpret scenes, understand what almost everything in the scene is, and how it behaves, and plan routes based not just on your own goals, but taking into account the likely behavior of all sorts of thing you are likely, or even unlikely, to encounter. Is it enough to recognize that there is a quadrupedal mammal moving at a certain rate, or do you have to know something about moose behavior when driving through the forest?

If it turns out that you really can't get from here to there without all that knowledge, driverless cars will have to wait until we can pack that into a computer.
In that case, say good by to autonomous cars. Without external communication it simply cannot work. (Why do you think there are once again floating proposals for various V2V protocols and navigational packages that are pulling external data feeds like road closures and accidents are everywhere)

Error accumulation, subsystem failure, sensor failure, malicious external input, skew/noise/other anomalies in input data from sensors be it external or internal. Too many thing scan and will fail, scale of our transportation si simply too massive and space too limited.

Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Which would be determined by the human in the car
And for that they'll have to be constantly alert...
(That's why I like public transport here)
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2017, 07:41 AM   #126
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Which would be determined by the human in the car
...yes, obviously. What point did you think you were making?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2017, 01:06 PM   #127
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,059
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
In that case, say good by to autonomous cars. Without external communication it simply cannot work.
Oh ye of little faith.

Quote:
(Why do you think there are once again floating proposals for various V2V protocols and navigational packages that are pulling external data feeds like road closures and accidents are everywhere)
The information on road closures and accidents are being pulled because it is useful to the human drivers. It would also be useful to robotic drivers.

Quote:
Error accumulation, subsystem failure, sensor failure, malicious external input, skew/noise/other anomalies in input data from sensors be it external or internal. Too many thing scan and will fail, scale of our transportation si simply too massive and space too limited.
Actually, most of those are pretty easy to deal with. The only thing in the list that I think will even offer significant difficulty is the malicious input problem. Moreover, all those things happen with drivers today. It's called sleep deprivation, distraction, alcohol.

The big problem, really, is that the program that deals with any one of them has to be the same program that deals with all the others. Robotic vehicle software that can recognize a flat tire and drive appropriately is not too difficult to write. Using the same program that could have recognized a herd of deer by the side of the road in a snowstorm is fairly difficult to write.

Anyway, we'll keep working on it. If we succeed, they'll show up in your car dealerships.

For my part, I'm already a big winner on the subject. On the strength of their pending entry into the automotive market, I bought Nvidia stock last year. Cha-Ching! I don't know if I will every be able to buy a driverless car, but if they make one, I'll be able to afford one.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 12:42 AM   #128
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,743
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Oh ye of little faith.
So far nothing to contrary.
Quote:
The information on road closures and accidents are being pulled because it is useful to the human drivers. It would also be useful to robotic drivers.
Yep, and that si external datafeed. Part of attack surface, yet necessary or one gets quickly stuck .
Quote:
Actually, most of those are pretty easy to deal with. The only thing in the list that I think will even offer significant difficulty is the malicious input problem. Moreover, all those things happen with drivers today. It's called sleep deprivation, distraction, alcohol.

The big problem, really, is that the program that deals with any one of them has to be the same program that deals with all the others. Robotic vehicle software that can recognize a flat tire and drive appropriately is not too difficult to write. Using the same program that could have recognized a herd of deer by the side of the road in a snowstorm is fairly difficult to write.

Anyway, we'll keep working on it. If we succeed, they'll show up in your car dealerships.

For my part, I'm already a big winner on the subject. On the strength of their pending entry into the automotive market, I bought Nvidia stock last year. Cha-Ching! I don't know if I will every be able to buy a driverless car, but if they make one, I'll be able to afford one.
Just keep expectations in check.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 07:24 AM   #129
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Oh ye of little faith.



The information on road closures and accidents are being pulled because it is useful to the human drivers. It would also be useful to robotic drivers.



Actually, most of those are pretty easy to deal with. The only thing in the list that I think will even offer significant difficulty is the malicious input problem. Moreover, all those things happen with drivers today. It's called sleep deprivation, distraction, alcohol.

The big problem, really, is that the program that deals with any one of them has to be the same program that deals with all the others. Robotic vehicle software that can recognize a flat tire and drive appropriately is not too difficult to write. Using the same program that could have recognized a herd of deer by the side of the road in a snowstorm is fairly difficult to write.

Anyway, we'll keep working on it. If we succeed, they'll show up in your car dealerships.

For my part, I'm already a big winner on the subject. On the strength of their pending entry into the automotive market, I bought Nvidia stock last year. Cha-Ching! I don't know if I will every be able to buy a driverless car, but if they make one, I'll be able to afford one.
As one might predict, that highlighted part is where I part company here. It may well be true, but it points up what seems at least part of the problem. It's true that, as a whole, the driving population suffers from those problems, but those are problems we, as drivers, can control. If you don't drink, you don't join the ranks of drunk drivers. Ever. Statistically, of course, a new system that reduces the deaths from drunk driving drastically is laudable and good. But if it also redistributes the risk, those whose likelihood of driving drunk used to be zero have reasons, selfish though they may be, for not liking it.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 07:31 AM   #130
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,487
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
...yes, obviously. What point did you think you were making?
The one that went over your head but was easily grasped in the post preceding yours.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:43 AM   #131
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
The one that went over your head but was easily grasped in the post preceding yours.
I read that, but I still don't see the point of making such an obvious remark. Of course you have to stay alert when the car is driving. You won't catch me sleeping in one of those.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 08:25 AM   #132
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,040
I voted Yes because the poll didn't specify where and some countries will be quicker to go for it than others.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 08:31 AM   #133
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,324
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
As one might predict, that highlighted part is where I part company here. It may well be true, but it points up what seems at least part of the problem. It's true that, as a whole, the driving population suffers from those problems, but those are problems we, as drivers, can control. If you don't drink, you don't join the ranks of drunk drivers. Ever. Statistically, of course, a new system that reduces the deaths from drunk driving drastically is laudable and good. But if it also redistributes the risk, those whose likelihood of driving drunk used to be zero have reasons, selfish though they may be, for not liking it.
If only drunk drivers limited their carnage to self harm.

But your point stands that humans like the illusion of control even when they know it is illusory.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 09:38 AM   #134
Spock Jenkins
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 534
I look forward to a time when driver operated vehicles are far outnumbered by driverless cars, and they all sense me coming and get out of the way!
Spock Jenkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 10:23 AM   #135
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
If only drunk drivers limited their carnage to self harm.

But your point stands that humans like the illusion of control even when they know it is illusory.
Of course there is still a chance that a drunk driver will hit you anyway, but the fact still remains that if you do not drive drunk you will never be a drunk driver, and the fact still remains that this changes the individual's relation to the statistical average. The mere illusion of control may be part of it, but it's certainly not all of it. Nobody is ever entirely safe, but if you remove the factors that are truly under one's control, it's not nothing.

It may well be that the improvement of self driving cars is so great that it outweighs all factors and makes everyone safer, but the arguments I've seen here have tended to be more simplistically utilitarian, and that is not so convincing.

What percentage of highway deaths involve the victims of drunk drivers in other cars? Of those, what percentage involve other failures on the part of the victims, such as speed, inattention, and so forth? I'm sure there are some, but the illusion of control is certainly not entirely bogus. Whether the control is enough is a different question to whether there is any at all.

Selfish? Sure. A large proportion of our driving is selfish to begin with. If we wanted true freedom from automotive risk, it would be both safer and cheaper to eliminate cars altogether. Go back to horses, buses and street railways. Our freedom to do or not do dangerous things is selfish. Our freedom to own and drive cars is dangerously selfish. I don't believe you have to be a raging libertarian to feel that there is a balance somewhere between dangerous freedom and safe utility. Society and its overall health are extremely important, but we are not bees in a hive.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 11:11 AM   #136
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,324
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Of course there is still a chance that a drunk driver will hit you anyway, but the fact still remains that if you do not drive drunk you will never be a drunk driver, and the fact still remains that this changes the individual's relation to the statistical average. The mere illusion of control may be part of it, but it's certainly not all of it. Nobody is ever entirely safe, but if you remove the factors that are truly under one's control, it's not nothing.
Agreed.

My recently licensed daughter and I arrived on the scene of an accident the other day. We were looking at the three cars wrecked and I tried to get her to tell me what likely went wrong. As a new driver I thought it a good exercise for her to see all the different failures that could have lead to the accident. It was a left turn across three oncoming lanes that is sometimes protected. So we went through all the ways the oncoming car could have hit the obviously turning vehicle and whose fault it would be and how it could have been avoided. But in the end the third car was just sitting at a light waiting its turn. Then whatever happened happened and the left turning car was hit by the oncoming car and the two slammed into the third car that obviously did nothing wrong. That was the real lesson, sometimes other people driving poorly is unavoidable.

Quote:
Our freedom to own and drive cars is dangerously selfish. I don't believe you have to be a raging libertarian to feel that there is a balance somewhere between dangerous freedom and safe utility. Society and its overall health are extremely important, but we are not bees in a hive.
Agreed, but if we can find a better balance there are tens of thousands of lives we can save. Every year. Not a bad incentive to try harder.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 7th February 2017 at 11:12 AM. Reason: to clarify that we were not in the accident.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 03:47 PM   #137
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,059
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I read that, but I still don't see the point of making such an obvious remark. Of course you have to stay alert when the car is driving. You won't catch me sleeping in one of those.
I will be.

Driverless cars won't be allowed into consumers' hands until there is no need for manual override in emergencies. The reaction time will be too slow to prevent most accidents when the operator/backup driver is a regular human who bought the car because he wanted to be free of the hassle of driving. They would have to avoid accidents all by themselves.

The backup driver is there so that the operator can take over in unusual situations, like traffic jams, accident scenes, or other cases where the computer driver just doesn't understand the sensible thing to do. If there are many of those, though, the car companies won't be allowed to sell the cars.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 09:47 AM   #138
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Self-driving vehicles could begin tooling down a bustling Atlanta street full of cars, buses, bicyclists and college students, as the city vies with other communities nationwide to test the emerging technology. Link
I saw a reporter interviewed the other night (I think on CNN; I can't find the interview online) who covers this technology. She said one positive development that is happening now is, the various manufacturers are beginning "to talk to one another," sharing data and beginning an effort to develop standards. Another is advances in AI (artificial intelligence), that developers are beginning to look at ways the driverless car would have software that would enable it to make decisions on how to navigate new situations based on previous experience, the same way a human driver does.

She also mentioned that lawmakers have begun looking at this technology. That decisions would have to be made about things such as insurance liability: for instance when there is an accident and someone gets killed who is liable? She mentioned, as does the article I linked, it might also be time to start thinking about what changes streets and highways will need to accommodate driverless cars, to begin incorporating some of this into street and highway construction in the near future.

It was also mentioned the answer to the frequent question -- how will a traffic cop communicate with driverless cars -- is "electronically."
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 11:20 AM   #139
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I will be.

Driverless cars won't be allowed into consumers' hands until there is no need for manual override in emergencies. The reaction time will be too slow to prevent most accidents when the operator/backup driver is a regular human who bought the car because he wanted to be free of the hassle of driving. They would have to avoid accidents all by themselves.
Some accidents. Robots surely won't be 100% effective and in some, relatively rare circumstances, I'd rather take control than die because the machine didn't spot the ravine.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 05:29 PM   #140
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,059
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Some accidents. Robots surely won't be 100% effective and in some, relatively rare circumstances, I'd rather take control than die because the machine didn't spot the ravine.
The thing is that the reason I want a driverless car is so I don't have to pay attention. I want to read, work, sleep, eat, play games when I drive. If there is any possibility that I might have to take control of that wheel in order to save my life, or the life of a pedestrian or oncoming vehicles, then that's a real problem because I might be sleeping.

And the regulators know that. They can require anything they want to, and they know it won't matter. Once the car can drive itself, the drivers won't pay attention. Therefore, the car itself has to be able to avoid life threatening situations at least as well as I can, when I am awake, alert, and not distracted. Until that happens, they won't be allowed on the road for anything except experimental circumstances.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 03:11 AM   #141
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,189
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Some accidents. Robots surely won't be 100% effective and in some, relatively rare circumstances, I'd rather take control than die because the machine didn't spot the ravine.
Why do you think you would be better at spotting the ravine than the self driving car that has much more information about its environment than you can ever have and can't be distracted by that bit of bacon struck between your teeth?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 04:20 AM   #142
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,743
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why do you think you would be better at spotting the ravine than the self driving car that has much more information about its environment than you can ever have and can't be distracted by that bit of bacon struck between your teeth?
Assumption: Car knows about it. Not given. Also assumption that it gets processed correctly and no false positive nor negative appears.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 05:37 AM   #143
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why do you think you would be better at spotting the ravine than the self driving car that has much more information about its environment than you can ever have and can't be distracted by that bit of bacon struck between your teeth?
What a strange question.

I'm sure that robot cars will, given time, be better on average than humans. It does not mean that they won't make mistakes, and when they do, I want to be alert AND able to wrest control of the car from the machine. Why is that so hard to understand?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 05:38 AM   #144
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The thing is that the reason I want a driverless car is so I don't have to pay attention.
Good for you. I can't take my eyes off the road even when I'm not the one driving the car. To each his own, which was my point to begin with.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 06:30 AM   #145
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,040
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm sure that robot cars will, given time, be better on average than humans. It does not mean that they won't make mistakes, and when they do, I want to be alert AND able to wrest control of the car from the machine. Why is that so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand. It just doesn't make sense. If a car's AI does make a wrong decision, by the time its human passenger has switched his/her attention to the scene around him/her, identified the problem, decided what should have been done instead, gotten into position at the controls, and activated the "take over" command, the whole thing will already have been over for several seconds. And even if that weren't the case, you'd be putting the situation in the control of a brain whose competence is based on experience not programming, but who hasn't had any experience at this.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 06:35 AM   #146
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
It's not hard to understand. It just doesn't make sense. If a car's AI does make a wrong decision, by the time its human passenger has switched his/her attention to the scene around him/her, identified the problem, decided what should have been done instead, gotten into position at the controls, and activated the "take over" command, the whole thing will already have been over for several seconds.
That's because you're assuming that I'm not already behind the wheel; and decision-making while driving is a split-second deal. Now all it requires is the push of a button first.

Quote:
And even if that weren't the case, you'd be putting the situation in the control of a brain whose competence is based on experience not programming, but who hasn't had any experience at this.
Now that's a much better argument: soon enough humans won't have much experience driving, either. Which of course raises the question: who's going to program the robots if no one has experience with driving?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 07:08 AM   #147
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
...I'd rather take control than die because the machine didn't spot the ravine.
I hear echoes of an argument I used to hear all the time when I was kid and seat belts were being phased in. I don't want to burn to death in an accident because my belt jammed. That was a constant refrain. It was scary to contemplate too. An accident, you get rammed, hit a pole, the car filling with smoke, getting hotter, now flames starting to flare up; struggling with the belt, just totally jammed, becoming frantic...Somebody help me please! Whew!

Now seat belts are mandatory -- at least in the U.S. -- and you don't hear that anymore.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2017, 07:27 AM   #148
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I hear echoes of an argument I used to hear all the time when I was kid and seat belts were being phased in. I don't want to burn to death in an accident because my belt jammed. That was a constant refrain.
Notice that they also improved belt designs, though, so that no longer happens except in movies.

You also CAN unbuckle your seatbelt if you want.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 04:05 AM   #149
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,189
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Assumption: Car knows about it. Not given. Also assumption that it gets processed correctly and no false positive nor negative appears.
No such assumption, you've jumped over the point I made.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 10:47 AM   #150
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,324
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Good for you. I can't take my eyes off the road even when I'm not the one driving the car. To each his own, which was my point to begin with.
Just like a taxi, right?
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 10:57 AM   #151
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,430
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Some accidents. Robots surely won't be 100% effective and in some, relatively rare circumstances, I'd rather take control than die because the machine didn't spot the ravine.
But since around 90% of accidents are because of human error, machines will be more effective and reduce fatalities, insurance claims, etc.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:02 AM   #152
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Just like a taxi, right?
If you're refering to me keeping my eyes on the road, yes.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:03 AM   #153
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
But since around 90% of accidents are because of human error, machines will be more effective and reduce fatalities, insurance claims, etc.
Absolutely.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:06 AM   #154
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,324
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If you're refering to me keeping my eyes on the road, yes.
I'm referring to your ability to break through the barrier and wrest control from a driver who appears to have lost control.

I suppose limos and buses and planes and trains would be more limiting on your ability to effectively keep aware of how the operator is doing.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:08 AM   #155
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I'm referring to your ability to break through the barrier and wrest control from a driver who appears to have lost control.
You seem to be conflating two things I've said. This:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm sure that robot cars will, given time, be better on average than humans. It does not mean that they won't make mistakes, and when they do, I want to be alert AND able to wrest control of the car from the machine. Why is that so hard to understand?
And this:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Good for you. I can't take my eyes off the road even when I'm not the one driving the car. To each his own, which was my point to begin with.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:17 AM   #156
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,324
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You seem to be conflating two things I've said. This:



And this:
Maybe so, they don't seem so unrelated to me. You refuse to ride in a driverless car that you can not wrest control of but you appear to be willing to ride in vehicles that do not allow you to wrest control from the driver.

Parse it how you will, but that seems to be a bit contradictory.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:23 AM   #157
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,648
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
You refuse to ride in a driverless car that you can not wrest control of but you appear to be willing to ride in vehicles that do not allow you to wrest control from the driver.
I believe I've established the difference between humans and machines already. Besides I can always yell "LOOK OUT!" to a human driver. Computers, not so much.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2017, 12:51 AM   #158
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,743
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No such assumption, you've jumped over the point I made.
No. Your point had an inbuilt assumption I went after. No jumping involved.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2017, 04:38 AM   #159
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,189
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
No. Your point had an inbuilt assumption I went after. No jumping involved.
What was my assumption?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2017, 09:02 AM   #160
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,197
I think we can learn something from the phasing in of seat belts. At first people resisted them, they always mentioned being trapped by a belt following a collision and then the car catches fire. It was such a common refrain that the safety councils even addressed it. I recall seeing a film -- I think in high school driver ed -- about this issue.

The example was a relatively low speed accident, a car hitting a tree at 35 mph. The car stops almost instantly, the bumper deflects but the frame is strong enough to absorb the impact and stop. As the driver, you don't stop instantly. Your body is still moving 35 mph until you hit the dashboard or the steering wheel. The chances are you will be injured, probably seriously. And at speeds not much faster than 35 the risk of death increases dramatically. Wearing a seat belt greatly increases your chances of not getting hurt in a low speed accident or surviving a collision at higher speed.

The risk of the belt jamming and the car catching fire is very low. It undoubtedly happens but it is very rare.

So the thinking was, do you protect yourself against the most likely risks or don't protect yourself in order to be possibly protected from the least likely risk?

It's the same idea with driverless technology. Studies have long since established that driver error is the primary cause in 90% of all vehicle accidents. There are about 1,000 people killed on the roads in the U.S. every month. The number of people injured is in the tens of thousands. Could the use of driverless vehicles cut that by 90%? How about 50%? Do you want to reduce your risk of being injured or killed by half, or do you want to accept the higher risk because you want to maintain control over your own car?

I think the underlying psychology is the same as with seat belts: the belief it won't happen to me anyway. Back in the 1960s drivers reasoned that the seat belt was introducing a new risk: being trapped. They weren't gaining anything from greater protection in collisions since they were good drivers and weren't going to be in a collision. That's a fallacy -- even the best drivers get into collisions -- but it was a common reaction to the introduction of seat belts.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.