Reply
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Like Tree30Likes

The Moral Machine - Pedestrians vs Passengers

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    7,298

    Apparently, like beliefs, ethics are different depending on location.
    Looks like they'll have to program a car differently depending whether its shipped to China or Japan.
    Who'd have thought?

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...olley-problem/

    TheBrit, HK_Katherine and spode like this.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    25,353

    The stakes have been upped in this theoretical problem:

    Elon Musk said at an event on Monday that Tesla will someday allow drivers to select aggressive modes of its Autopilot driver assistance system that have a “slight chance of a fender bender.” Musk didn’t say when Tesla might roll out that option, only that the company would have to have “higher confidence” in Autopilot’s capabilities before allowing it to happen.

    “Do you want to have a nonzero chance of a fender bender on freeway traffic?” Musk asked at the event, which was for investors in the company. He dubbed it “LA traffic mode,” because “unfortunately, [it’s] the only way to navigate LA traffic.”

    Tesla already allows its owners to select a “Mad Max” setting for Navigate on Autopilot, which is a feature that handles highway driving from on-ramp to off-ramp. The Mad Max setting makes quicker lane changes than if the car is in “Mild” or “Average” modes.

    Musk suggested Tesla will eventually allow drivers to choose “gradually more aggressive behavior” by “dial[ing] the setting up.”
    https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/1...-fender-bender
    Have a GeoExpat related problem - please create a support ticket.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    a sunny un spoilt paradise
    Posts
    6,807
    Quote Originally Posted by shri
    The stakes have been upped in this theoretical problem:



    https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/1...-fender-bender
    I think this will work providing that all vehicles that have driverless capability, can communicate with each other ie SWARM sharing of GPS destination( telemetry ) insuring a high rate of predictability. Car accidents are usually caused by unpredictable driver behavior, so if they can achieve this, with a sound crash avoidance system, then all good.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    17,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyhook
    I think this will work providing that all vehicles that have driverless capability, can communicate with each other ie SWARM sharing of GPS destination( telemetry ) insuring a high rate of predictability. Car accidents are usually caused by unpredictable driver behavior, so if they can achieve this, with a sound crash avoidance system, then all good.
    This will happen, but it won't happen by next year, or even in the next five or ten years. Musk is throwing this kind of rubbish out to try to distract from the disaster unfolding at Tesla - demand dropping or their products before they're reached any kind of scale whatsoever. This is an existential problem.
    Skyhook likes this.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    25,353

    At the end of the day, the data, no matter how little or how much is shared - is irrelevant.

    What is important is the what is done with that data by the software that is controlling the vehicle.

    Would Volvo's software have the same intentional behavior as say Tesla's Mad Max mode software when it comes to making a decision on whose life is more valuable?

    And then there are some fundamentals - physics / momentum / car component capabilities. Would a Volvo XC-90 behave differently if the decision involved say an eastern european car ahead of it v/s say another XC-90 behind it.

    Lets not forget than mobile and near field networks on which these cars will rely on tend to lag under swarm conditions.

    I bet the decisions would me faster than human reactions. Perhaps even more predictable than human reactions which would made under stress and distracting conditions.

    BUT, are we mentally ready to trust a decision on data arriving at the same time to all the decision making nodes and all the nodes engaging in micro-second collaborative processes which end up with a common and "safe" decision?

    Have a GeoExpat related problem - please create a support ticket.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    a sunny un spoilt paradise
    Posts
    6,807
    Quote Originally Posted by shri
    At the end of the day, the data, no matter how little or how much is shared - is irrelevant.

    What is important is the what is done with that data by the software that is controlling the vehicle.

    Would Volvo's software have the same intentional behavior as say Tesla's Mad Max mode software when it comes to making a decision on whose life is more valuable?

    And then there are some fundamentals - physics / momentum / car component capabilities. Would a Volvo XC-90 behave differently if the decision involved say an eastern european car ahead of it v/s say another XC-90 behind it.

    Lets not forget than mobile and near field networks on which these cars will rely on tend to lag under swarm conditions.

    I bet the decisions would me faster than human reactions. Perhaps even more predictable than human reactions which would made under stress and distracting conditions.

    BUT, are we mentally ready to trust a decision on data arriving at the same time to all the decision making nodes and all the nodes engaging in micro-second collaborative processes which end up with a common and "safe" decision?
    As per your last paragraph, in a manner of speaking we are mentally prepared, commercial transponder equipped aircraft, already employ a crash avoidance system TCAS I, II and III and have done for years.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    25,353

    I agree on the concept - but the parameters for crash avoidance of aircraft are global standards I assume and governed by IATA.

    Suspect they've been negotiated with huge margins of paranoia.

    Elon's "Mad Max" mode... even the fact that he calls it that, should be cause for concern. Imagine if Boeing sold a "Max Max" upgrade.

    TigerSun likes this.
    Have a GeoExpat related problem - please create a support ticket.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    17,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyhook
    As per your last paragraph, in a manner of speaking we are mentally prepared, commercial transponder equipped aircraft, already employ a crash avoidance system TCAS I, II and III and have done for years.
    Doesn't this just warn the pilots though, rather than taking direct remedial action by itself?

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    a sunny un spoilt paradise
    Posts
    6,807
    Quote Originally Posted by shri
    I agree on the concept - but the parameters for crash avoidance of aircraft are global standards I assume and governed by IATA.

    Suspect they've been negotiated with huge margins of paranoia.

    Elon's "Mad Max" mode... even the fact that he calls it that, should be cause for concern. Imagine if Boeing sold a "Max Max" upgrade.
    A standardised system needs to be employed in the car industry, like they have for seat belts, headlights, airbags, pretensioners etc under the guise of design rules.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    17,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyhook
    A standardised system needs to be employed in the car industry, like they have for seat belts, headlights, airbags, pretensioners etc under the guise of design rules.
    Good luck with that. With the panoply of competing interests and no global regulator I can't see it happening anytime soon...

Reply
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast