Autonomous Cars, Yes or No?

[chillibowl]

and who is to say protecting life in general or human life would be the priority?

if the program looks at this in terms of liability then perhaps the conclusion it comes to is that value of the life of an 80 year old retired person is less than the potential property damage so when it attempts to avoid an accident it does so from the point of view of which outcome will cost its owner more money and attempt to avoid that...taking out the old person or driving into that house.


scary stuff.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and who is to say protecting life in general or human life would be the priority?

if the program looks at this in terms of liability then perhaps the conclusion it comes to is that value of the life of an 80 year old retired person is less than the potential property damage so when it attempts to avoid an accident it does so from the point of view of which outcome will cost its owner more money and attempt to avoid that...taking out the old person or driving into that house.


scary stuff.

In medical emergency situations, I believe it is called Triage, Chilli.

As a chum advised me some years ago. Choice: young child; middle aged man/woman: old geezer.??

Choice Target One: child.

Target Two: Middles aged man/woman.

Target Three: geezer.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by SidewaysFeltham

In medical emergency situations, I believe it is called Triage, Chilli.

computer assisted triage!

would that come as an option or a standard feature?

[owrforever]

News has just come out that one of Google's self driving Lexus hybrid suv's got tangled up with city bus in Mountain View, California on February 14th. Nobody was hurt, obviously the system still requires some attention. Google is accepting "partial responsibility." Any lawyers out there?

[275 GTB-4]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and who is to say protecting life in general or human life would be the priority?

if the program looks at this in terms of liability then perhaps the conclusion it comes to is that value of the life of an 80 year old retired person is less than the potential property damage so when it attempts to avoid an accident it does so from the point of view of which outcome will cost its owner more money and attempt to avoid that...taking out the old person or driving into that house.


scary stuff.

I say NO to auto no mouse cars....technology is way to immature...

However, taking the above scenario one step further...I would like to think that the auto car would make the decision to drive the bomb carrying Jihadist over the cliff into the quarry rather than continuing on route to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in DC

[chillibowl]

'the internal sensor has detected an onboard explosive device...it will now drive you to a secluded area and self destruct. thank you for choosing Google.'

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

'the internal sensor has detected an onboard explosive device...it will now drive you to a secluded area and self destruct. thank you for choosing Google.'

Nice one!

But seriously, on the subject of autonomous cars - I'm afraid it has to be a no, and here's why:

For as long as the autonomous cars have to share the roads with humans, it can never work. Why? Because it doesn't matter how sophisticated your software may be, you can't program it to make a moral or ethical decision. It's been said that these cars will be incapable of making an error. Sorry, but not with current technology they won't. Computer crash, glitch, momentary lock-up - all things that happen with alarming regularity with current technology.

Don't even get me started on hackers! By definition, these autonomous cars will have to be connected to the internet, and the moment they are, they're hackable. The hackers would have a field day. They're already hacking into some of the latest cars allowing them to bypass security systems, start engines, etc. Imagine the fun they'd have with driverless cars!

Someone else said it may work if all vehicles were driverless, because then there would be no human element to err, and the autonomous cars wouldn't be capable of error. Well, even ignoring what I've already said above, there are still a few sticking points here. Firstly, there is no way that anyone reading this will be alive long enough to see a scenario where all vehicles are driverless - it just isn't going to happen in our lifetime. Secondly, even if it did - vehicles aren't the only road users are they? What about pedestrians, cyclists, animals? For as long as there are humans sharing the same environment as the autonomous cars, then there is the potential for a human to do something unpredictable that the computer hasn't anticipated (for which read: been programmed for). And as it simply isn't practical to completely separate all humans from any roads, then this will always be a problem.

Now, I haven't even mentioned yet the legal black-hole that autonomous cars will create! Just imagine it - the lawyers must be rubbing their hands together already just at the thought of it all! Picture this scenario: you're happily being driven along a hilly road in your autonomous car, sitting back and enjoying this month's edition of 'Computer Geek Monthly' when, without warning, a woman pushing a twin buggy pram just shoves it out into the road to cross, without looking - right in front of your motorised computer. In the split second that it has to consider things, your computer, being capable, as it is, of a gazillion calculations a second, decides that braking in a straight line will not allow it to stop before hitting the woman: likely result, woman and possibly two babies die. So it considers other options. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen cyclists three abreast oncoming on the other side of the road, and calculations show that swerving in that direction to miss the woman & pram will result in collision with the cylists: casualties calculated at two or possibly three cyclists die, with one or possibly two others suffering serious injury. So, now running out of options, the computer realises that there is only one realistic option remaining, and that is to swerve the other way, away from the oncoming cyclists and away from the woman & pram - but this means leaving the road to the left where, sadly, just beyond the pavement but before the car can be stopped, there is an almost sheer drop down into a river: likely outcome - you die! Despite this, the computer decides that this is the best course of action, because one death (yours) is a better outcome than the deaths of a woman and children or the deaths of several cyclists. Result: car crashes off the embankment into the river, and you die, but the woman, children and cyclists are all unharmed. The computer considers this the best possible outcome. Do you?

What if the ensuing inquiry reveals that the woman with the pram is an alcoholic and was completely p*ssed that day when she just stepped out without thinking? As a result, she is prosecuted, and found guilty of gross negligence (or whatever) - not gonna be much comfort to you is it?

You might say it's an extreme example, and maybe so, but the fact is that these life or death decisions do arise, on a daily basis, on our roads. You may also argue that given the same scenario with a human driving, someone still had to die. Yes, agreed, but here's the difference, and it's a huge one: to err is to be human, and whatever decision a human made in that split second is difficult to criticize, because, as humans, we have emotions, morals, ethics and self-preservation instincts - and the humans involved in such events simply have to live with the decision they made.

But hand that decision to a computer - and this is where the lawyers will be getting excited - and all of a sudden, there's a huge (read wealthy, and very public) company behind that decision, and it's been taken by a software engineer in a pre-meditated manner, not by someone in a split-second life or death situation. And guess what? All of a sudden, there's culpability, at least enough for the lawyers to get in a fight over it, and then it's all going to get very messy, very quickly I reckon.

So, I think I'll just stick to being in charge of my own fate thanks, whatever it may be! I won't be going in any autonomous cars...

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Paul D

Don't even get me started on hackers! By definition, these autonomous cars will have to be connected to the internet,

Really? Look up the definition of autonomous.

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Really? Look up the definition of autonomous.

Autonomous: having the freedom to act independently (Oxford Dictionaries)

Note the word 'freedom' in there? Autonomous doesn't mean a compulsion to act independently, but simply the ability to do so. In the context of computer controlled cars, all that means is a car that is capable of driving itself. It does not mean a totally self-contained machine that is incapable of any external intervention, as you seem to be suggesting.

How do you suppose these cars will receive software updates, report faults, get information on road changes, traffic situations, etc? It can only be done via a capability to download information - and as soon as you give it the capability to download stuff, then potentially you let the hackers in too.

It's already been proven in the US, where a hacker (a young teenager I seem to remember, so imagine what an experienced hacker could achieve) demonstrated he could circumvent the systems on the latest GM vehicles and take partial control, allowing him to start engines, lock and unlock the doors and remotely operate other systems within the car.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The idea that all technology deskills is an idea that only works if you ignore the skills required to use new technology. The ability to actually use a computer is far more relevant than hand writing in today's world. This is not deskilling but rather a a transfer of skills to a more relevant area. This is why the idea that modern drivers are less skilled because they do not double d clutch is nonsense. Today's drivers are more skilled at dealing with the over congestion and information overload than older generations.

Thank you for providing links and then posting the information in the thread. Unfortunately there appears to be a bit of a breakdown of understanding on what we're discussing. You appear to be taking my posts as talking about the youngest possible generation of drivers, hence the mentioning of 17 year olds (you'll notice I haven't mentioned age brackets and certainly nothing that young). The original discussion was not about teenagers who have just passed their test, but the difference between the people who passed tests decades and decades ago, and the drivers of today. The 50s and 60s were even mentioned and some wildly inaccurate claims of the test being the same as 50 years ago were banded about.

You won't find me arguing that 17 year olds are better drivers than 50 year olds. I don't think anyone would (or has) made that claim. But I will dispute that a 25 year old is fundamentally a worse driver because he doesn't know how to use an outdated clutch system, despite passing a more stringent test in a more stressful environment. [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

Q E D T P and any other letters you'd like. [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

On the rest of your examples, I don't really agree. The example of not being able to fly a plane without a computer is a particularly bad one since it's all electronic and doesn't physically work without it. So if the onboard computer goes down, then the best pilot in the world isn't flying your plane. And kids using calculators is a good thing since the maths and especially science they are doing has advanced a lot since we were in school. I also don't agree these examples are relevant to the example of cars and clutches and only serve to driver is further off topic. [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

Edit: just a note that I think the assumption about ages is most likely being tied to an assumption on my age. I am not a teenage driver (I wish). I'm not even a 20s driver. I'm well into my 30s. Whilst I would never say I am old and certainly not as experienced on the road as someone in their 60s. So I am not defending younger generations out of pride of my age, because that isn't my generation!

This was your opening statement: post#20

I completely disagree with the idea that a modern vehicle is "de-skilling" current drivers. Given that decades ago, a driving test involved driving up and down a runway and knowing the basic controls, and todays test is FAR more comprehensive, I don't think that's fair.

You then stated:

So I do not agree with the suggestion that we're deskilling drivers. The statistics show the opposite

Continually, you assert, driving standards are far better, thanks to the higher standards of current tests.


Therefore if the foregoing is correct, then how come:


“Some 31,668 males – just over one-third of the total number of people disqualified from driving during this period – were between the ages of 20 and 30.
Males also outnumber females considerably when it comes to carrying out offences leading to a driving ban. In total 13,481 females were disqualified during this time period – less than 15 per cent of the overall total.
And in the 20-30 age group just 4,333 females were disqualified in the 12 month period, compared to 31,668 males.”


As I stated previously, the date of introduction of your whizzy new tests means the age groups who supposedly passed lie between 31 to 37 years old. As age increases, the numbers disqualified rapidly reduces. This data is all in the earlier references I cited.


Now this was amusing!


[quote On the rest of your examples, I don't really agree. The example of not being able to fly a plane without a computer is a particularly bad one since it's all electronic and doesn't physically work without it. So if the onboard computer goes down, then the best pilot in the world isn't flying your plane. [/quote]


You cannot really believe all airplanes now fly themselves, surely?
They can take off, land and make certain autonomous decisions (operating height, speed, heading) mainly on optimal fuel consumption grounds.
If the computer and back-up go down, however, then the pilots take over.
However, the more automatic the process becomes, then obviously, pilots are gradually de-skilled, since such skills are developed over time and honed each and every time they fly.

And kids using calculators is a good thing since the maths and especially science they are doing has advanced a lot since we were in school.

Except in order in order to program a calculator, the user needs a degree of basic maths skills. Even quite simple calculations require basic knowledge.


For example, on a simple calculator, compute the following:


1. In 2014 my company turned over £2,000,000. In 2015, my company turned over only £ 1,500,000. What is the percentage droop between 2014 and 2015? (i.e. how much less is the 2015 turnover expressed in percentage terms of reference).


2. I need to work out my VAT account. Invoices showing the total inclusive of VAT need (i) The actual sales price less VAT; and, (ii) The VAT.
VAT is 20%. Remember, usefully, there are 100 Pence per pound.


Seems the US Navy agrees concerning de-skilling...


“Mr McKinlay concluded: "Schools should teach navigation and map reading as life skills.


"The introduction of computers and calculators has not removed the need to understand numbers. The US Navy has started to teach celestial navigation again as a back-up skill.
"Navigation is where complex systems meet capable users." “


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...erts-warn.html