Can we hold the coders liable, as is the case for other engineers when design flaws or ommissions cause loss of life? I want code engineers to start stamping and certifying their work.
Can we hold the coders liable, as is the case for other engineers when design flaws or ommissions cause loss of life? I want code engineers to start stamping and certifying their work.1. reproduce the fault in a simulation
2. fix code / learning sets for the AI
3. prove it works
Continue.
That is whats going to happen
i think it's because virtual larry can see where tajy is going with this.Why? If this was a case where a human would have hit the jaywalker too (like them darting out from behind a truck) then Skynet was not at fault this time.
I'm not sure about their current safety, but if not already then eventually self-driving cars will be safer than the typical human driver.
Next time a human driver kills a pedestrian, I will demand that we BAN human drivers!Good. I hope that the AZ Legislature takes up deliberation on passing a law to BAN those so-called "self driving" vehicles.
Edit: With apologies and condolences to the family of the deceased.
Can we hold the coders liable, as is the case for other engineers when design flaws or ommissions cause loss of life? I want code engineers to start stamping and certifying their work.
The time to stop them is now, before more innocent civilians die.
One perosn died from a self driving car. 1!
How many people die at the hands from other humans? ITS IN THE THOUSANDS.
1 vs Thousands.
Can we hold the coders liable, as is the case for other engineers when design flaws or ommissions cause loss of life? I want code engineers to start stamping and certifying their work.
Taj, are you a technophobe who wants to see thousands die to human drivers rather than risk far fewer deaths from automation?
Oh well. Disruption is simply using technology to circumvent the rules, regulations and standards that most industries must abide by...eventually Silicon Valley will too have to bend the knee. The EU is already starting to impose regulatory oversight.Costs and timelines would skyrocket - computer programming is incredibly complex for anything useful.
Professional engineers of other disciplines must be divine then, because they already are held accountable.If you can hold god accountable for the fallacies of man? Then yea. Sure.
Oh well. Disruption is simply using technology to circumvent the rules, regulations and standards that most industries must abide by...eventually Silicon Valley will too have to bend the knee. The EU is already starting to impose regulatory oversight.
Professional engineers of other disciplines must be divine then, because they already are held accountable.
It's not the safety I'm concerned about. It's the basic right of autonomy and self-determination. (*)I'm not sure about their current safety, but if not already then eventually self-driving cars will be safer than the typical human driver.
That may all very well be true, but it still circumvents the answer of who is liable when the AI makes a mistake.There is a billion lines of code, written by a million different coders, written from yesterday to 20 years ago, all interconnected and depended on each other. Good luck finding the guilty party.
The second you talk AI and neural nets your product is susceptible to the same errors as you and I would produce and while you and I may have an idea how to handle a jump scare in a car going 100 when an animal decides to cross the road? That AI has tried that 1.000.000 times in training sessions. Does that mean it will never act counterproductive in a jump scare scenario? No. Does it mean it handles it better than you or I by a factor of 1.000? Yes it does.
The corp selling the gear. It's their responsibility to test their products for safety. Just like any other car maker...That may all very well be true, but it still circumvents the answer of who is liable when the AI makes a mistake.
What's frustrating is that this will probably trigger at least a mild backlash against self-driving vehicles, even though they should ultimately be safer than human-piloted cars.
Yes, something clearly went wrong, and yes, this is tragic and would ideally have been avoidable. But I'm worried this will lead to knee-jerk reactions in the public and legislatures rather than a careful, considered response that might lead to better regulation and cultural understanding.
Don’t be so sure of that:The corp selling the gear. It's their responsibility to test their products for safety. Just like any other car maker...
Next time a human driver kills a pedestrian, I will demand that we BAN human drivers!
Oh. It probably happened several times as I typed this.
There is a billion lines of code, written by a million different coders, written from yesterday to 20 years ago, all interconnected and depended on each other. Good luck finding the guilty party.
You're really jumping the gun. These experimental self-driving cars have DVR and all kinds of telemetry recorded. It may very well show that the only one responsible is the deceased pedestrian. I suspect that it will be the same scenario in nearly every future case of a pedestrian being hit by a self-driving car.I want more carless drivers not driverless cars.
But one can demand that the human driver involved is held to account. Now, granted, that doesn't happen as much as I'd want (largely because juries are full of bad drivers too quick to identify with the perpetrator). But at least there's an aspiration in principle. Some here seem to be saying that _nobody_ can be so held responsible when some self-driving car does the same. That's just not good enough.
Mostly though I want to see far fewer cars and far less driving. Self-driving cars aren't going to achieve that.
Well, if you can't point to who is responsible for what the car does, then you have no business using it on a public road. So hold responsible the car's owner who allowed it to be so used.
I remain in favour of such a backlash. I still think they are a techno-evangelist pipedream and that they either won't work and will be quietly shelved, or, much, much worse, will work only at the expense of remodelling public space to accommodate them and their limitations (in an alliance of profit-hungry corporations, the techno-evangelists, and the sedentary - possibly the three most powerful forces in the world, come to think of it).
Best outcome is they might find a niche use in some very limited contexts (maybe taking the jobs of some long-distance truck drivers on long straight empty roads with little pedestrian or cyclist or even human driver traffic). I don't believe they will ever be ready for mass use in chaotic, crowded urban areas, not without imposing huge restrictions on people in those areas.
I mean, they are testing them in Arizona, a place with perfect weather, wide roads, good lines of sight, and (mostly) well-behaved other traffic. And still they have accidents. Can't see them translating well to more difficult parts of the world.
One of the big benefits of self-driving cars is the ability to have car services drive you around like an Uber. A car would take you to work and then go off moving other people around rather than just being parked at your office. If every car was self-driving and doing this, it would cut down on the number of cars in a city significantly.Mostly though I want to see far fewer cars and far less driving. Self-driving cars aren't going to achieve that.
No, I want to see automation take the place of 95% of government workers.Taj, are you a technophobe who wants to see thousands die to human drivers rather than risk far fewer deaths from automation?
I can think of one government worker we need to automate out of a jobNo, I want to see automation take the place of 95% of government workers.