Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wells
Not sure what you guys are on about.
All the cars with cell phone zombies behind the wheel are driverless.
Must be millions of them on the road as we type...
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Tom
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by strictlypersonl
Even with the current state of technology, I would rather have an autonomous car next to me on the highway than a half-conscious driver. I'll wait a bit to make that preference for urban driving, but I suspect that it won't be too long. Exceeding the current "average" driver's competence is not that big a jump.
|
I think possibly my point is getting confused with the capability of autonomous technology vs human guidance. I have absolutely no doubt that the autonomous model is the more capable model.
My issue is the programming of the autonomous model to respond to particular traffic situations that involve brain dead participants that put innocent observers at risk and sometimes risk of life.
The programming of the vehicle's autonomous guidance system should attempt to avoid any type of operation that puts humans at risk. That said when a human does something stupid, the operational logic should not select a course of action that puts an innocent observer to the event at risk for life or otherwise.
When someone does something stupid that puts themselves at risk, then they should own the responsibility for that decision. The risk and potential personal injury should not be transferred to another human being who just happens to be in proximity to the stupid person.
The guiding light, if there is one, is personal responsibility. Each individual must be responsible for their own decisions and actions. You should not transfer the responsibility for and results of those bad decisions / actions to an innocent bystander to avoid your responsibility for the bad decision. The attempt to escape responsibility by transferring it to an innocent bystander is patently wrong whether done by an individual or a machine.
The bottom line is people will still do stupid things, accidents will still occur, and anything that transfers the outcome and responsibility for those accidents to an innocent bystander is patently wrong to do.
We should try to educate and inform humans of dangerous decision making logic, encourage them not to use it. In the event they still choose to use it, no one but the individual who makes the stupid choice should have to pay for the bad judgement — especially and in particular if it will result in loss of life.
A pedestrian stepping into oncoming traffic on the expressway is a perfect example of poor decision logic applied to a life threatening situation. In this poor decision logic example, the decision and the attendant potential for loss of human life should be contained to that of only the stupid person.
In an autonomous vehicle situation the vehicular driving and accident avoidance logic should attempt to slow the vehicle without injuring the individual and importantly anyone else. If that is not possible then the vehicle's forward motion should be arrested in such a fashion that it does the least damage to the human life in the immediate area of the accident. The majority of the loss of life and limb, if at all possible, should be contained and focussed on the person who made the stupid choice.
This example is simple. The moment you added multiple actors the complexity of the logical solution skyrockets and a computer can better and more quickly resolve the logical problem. This is only true if the accident avoidance and resolution routines have been programmed both correctly and logically complete — a very difficult and demanding task by any standard.
Ed