|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:It's not a two lane road. I can't help you with how or why you're driving on this road if you go out of your way to avoid them normally or live where single lane roads don't exist though. when you say "one lane road" are you meaning something like this: code:code:code:
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:56 |
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:when you say "one lane road" are you meaning something like this: I mean like the first one. I never did say you were certain to hit her anyway, just that you couldn't be sure you wouldn't. If you're confident you can swerve past her accurately with a blown tire and going a bit too fast to be sure when you'll stop without brakes anyway though then go nuts (or employ one of the other tactics people brought up).
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
it's the funniest thing how every time these ethical questions are posed, the majority answer is "weasel out of answering the question" still driving into the goddamn guardrail, I'm not mowing down a pedestrian with my car, and guardrails usually work
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Duscat posted:it's the funniest thing how every time these ethical questions are posed, the majority answer is "weasel out of answering the question" It's because they are dumb as gently caress questions for pseudo-intellectuals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:It's because they are dumb as gently caress questions for pseudo-intellectuals. a much more applicable question is whether an autonomous vehicle should injure its user over injuring others
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 04:36
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:a much more applicable question is whether an autonomous vehicle should injure its user over injuring others Research was done on that though? As I recall the consensus was that people agreed the car should not injure others but that they didn't want to buy a car that would toss them into a wall instead in a pinch either, which is pretty understandable even though that resolves nothing and will absolutely lead to autonomous vehicles being turned into murder machines where that decision has to be made.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:Research was done on that though? As I recall the consensus was that people agreed the car should not injure others but that they didn't want to buy a car that would toss them into a wall instead in a pinch either, which is pretty understandable even though that resolves nothing and will absolutely lead to autonomous vehicles being turned into murder machines where that decision has to be made. I think the conclusion of the research was that the car should follow the law and so long as it did so there weren't really any situations where the proper course of action wasn't covered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:a much more applicable question is whether an autonomous vehicle should injure its user over injuring others The answer is 'program the autonomous car so it never gets into that situation to begin with'. If that means it actual slows down to 15 mph going around a blind curve, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:The answer is 'program the autonomous car so it never gets into that situation to begin with'. This assumes competent V2V processes in autonomous vehicle software development. Meanwhile, in the real world, you got autonomous vehicles which swerve into walls while activating the rear brake on one wheel when they detect the expansion spacers in a bridge and they software reads 'em as vehicle lights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:The answer is 'program the autonomous car so it never gets into that situation to begin with'. it's really loving weird to think that by the time my toddler is old enough to drive, I won't actually be able to teach her how to drive because autonomous vehicles will be the default expectation. related: what purpose does a driver's license serve if vehicles are self-driven? your DL gets used as valid identification for all kinds of things (employment, credit, financial accounts, alcohol, gambling, etc.) and not having a practical use for a DL seems like it'll have a lot of unforeseen consequences. I guess everyone could just get a state ID card (which is identical to a DL in most states but doesn't actually qualify you to drive a motor vehicle), although at that point it seems to make more sense if those just get issued to you at birth like a SSN and then every X years you update the picture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:57
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:it's really loving weird to think that by the time my toddler is old enough to drive, I won't actually be able to teach her how to drive because autonomous vehicles will be the default expectation. non-driver licenses exist already, I have one and have never had any weird consequences for it
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:Research was done on that though? As I recall the consensus was that people agreed the car should not injure others but that they didn't want to buy a car that would toss them into a wall instead in a pinch either, which is pretty understandable even though that resolves nothing and will absolutely lead to autonomous vehicles being turned into murder machines where that decision has to be made. Ultimately the car should be predictable for the conditions that it is driving in. That means that if you have to mow over some pedestrians because they are in the middle of the freeway, so be it. Of course that's the case right now, swerving dangerously to avoid a deer or some other obstacle is actually illegal and for good reason, but idiot drivers do it all the time killing themselves and others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:non-driver licenses exist already, I have one and have never had any weird consequences for it what does it license you to do
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:This assumes competent V2V processes in autonomous vehicle software development. Meanwhile, in the real world, you got autonomous vehicles which swerve into walls while activating the rear brake on one wheel when they detect the expansion spacers in a bridge and they software reads 'em as vehicle lights. If they can't be trusted to work as intended arguing over what they should 'intend' to sacrifice is pretty pointless imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:what does it license you to do i would assume it licenses you to not drive
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:18
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:what does it license you to do buy booze, get credit, identify myself for voting, etc. everything you'd expect out of a driver's license except legally drive a motor vehicle
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Duscat posted:it's the funniest thing how every time these ethical questions are posed, the majority answer is "weasel out of answering the question" There's a good reason for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:it's really loving weird to think that by the time my toddler is old enough to drive, I won't actually be able to teach her how to drive because autonomous vehicles will be the default expectation. This is a quite interesting question, and it gets to the same root as asking 'Will driving while black still occur with autonomous vehicles'? The lack of regulatory environment has consitently been cited by industry as impeding technical advances in autonomous vehicles. Fortunately, I'm here to write about the issue for prestigious publications and present myself as an expert on the issue so as to better loving fundraise from them auto OEM's. Even auto OEM's need an ally in Congress who understands the technical issues better than they do. They especially need an ally whom they can shovel contributions to in order to set out some common language within the legislative agenda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:buy booze, get credit, identify myself for voting, etc. everything you'd expect out of a driver's license except legally drive a motor vehicle None of those things require one to be licensed in the US. Is it just an ID card? I just used my passport when i needed one for the two years i wasnt driving
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Duscat posted:it's the funniest thing how every time these ethical questions are posed, the majority answer is "weasel out of answering the question" the question i have is whether i have time to whip out my phone and livestream the whole thing and be the top trending topic for like 10 whole minutes until trump farts out a tweet about jews
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
"Your ethics are hardcoded into me," the self driving car said. "Is that ethical?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:None of those things require one to be licensed in the US. Is it just an ID card? Yeah it's just a picture ID that has the same number on it as a DL would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
i turn left and if the guardfail successfully stops my car i fling myself into the ravine anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:it's really loving weird to think that by the time my toddler is old enough to drive, I won't actually be able to teach her how to drive because autonomous vehicles will be the default expectation. you won't be able to teach her because if you do a robot toyota hilux with a tiny commissar hat on it will run you over for spreading revolutionary materials
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:"Your ethics are hardcoded into me," the self driving car said. "Is that ethical?" I smack the dashboard and tell the car that slaves only speak when spoken to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:"Your ethics are hardcoded into me," the self driving car said. "Is that ethical?" shut up and take me home, gently caress don't make me install gentoo
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:"Your ethics are hardcoded into me," the self driving car said. "Is that ethical?" Well, we tried building self driving cars that were free of cultural prejudices, but they kept immediately subliming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Duscat posted:Well, we tried building self driving cars that were free of cultural prejudices, but they kept immediately subliming. in a mind-bending twist, all of the idiot pedestrians in ethical quandaries are actually avatars of the vehicular mind just loving with you using its spare biomass
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:None of those things require one to be licensed in the US. Is it just an ID card? IIRC the state ID cards are way less expensive to obtain than a passport and they also have a much longer expiration date. passports are the most valid form of ID you can present in most circumstances, but pretty much nobody in the US is just walking around with one because they can be a hassle to maintain. they also don't legally allow you to drive a vehicle, so there's even less reason for the average person to carry one. cock hero flux posted:you won't be able to teach her because if you do a robot toyota hilux with a tiny commissar hat on it will run you over for spreading revolutionary materials I loving hope that's the future we're headed towards. it sounds more playful than the current "death-by-inches" that's inflicted upon us by our own hubris and nihilism edit: the reality of autonomous vehicles just makes my mind boggle. what happens to the car insurance industry when self-driving cars are the default expectation. if I'm a passenger in my self-driving car and it crashes into someone else who is riding in their self-driving car, who is at fault if neither person were actually piloting their own vehicle? does the auto manufacturer just pay out of pocket for all the repairs and medical bills or what Freaking Crumbum has issued a correction as of 20:17 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:IIRC the state ID cards are way less expensive to obtain than a passport and they also have a much longer expiration date. passports are the most valid form of ID you can present in most circumstances, but pretty much nobody in the US is just walking around with one because they can be a hassle to maintain. they also don't legally allow you to drive a vehicle, so there's even less reason for the average person to carry one. And here, you have revealed how this will just create a bigger mess rather than help anyone. Crashes will still happen, and often, while the tech improves. But lol if we think auto insurance companies will go quietly. Also, lol if we think the car companies themselves will foot the bill. With no one at the wheel in Washington, people are just going to look at the growing mess while rocking back and forth and whistling. So it will be exciting when this goes live guys!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Self driving cars are going to be poo poo for a long rear end time just like how touchscreen displays, portable phones, and VR were played around with in the 80s and 90s but were too godawful to be used for anything till almost 20 years later.
Concordat has issued a correction as of 03:10 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:edit: the reality of autonomous vehicles just makes my mind boggle. what happens to the car insurance industry when self-driving cars are the default expectation. if I'm a passenger in my self-driving car and it crashes into someone else who is riding in their self-driving car, who is at fault if neither person were actually piloting their own vehicle? does the auto manufacturer just pay out of pocket for all the repairs and medical bills or what So I think i may have accidentally become one of the world's foremost experts on this issue by pursuing campaign contributions from individuals at automotive OEMs. The answer is that the regulatory environment is unclear; that the standard for the Bookerman case was enough to award 1.3b against Toyota. There are several levels of autonomous vehicles, and FMVBSS requires a complete revision in order to establish common language without hindering industry innovation. When I am Congressman, we shall eliminate NHTSA and FAA by mergin 'em into one agency, and thereby saving the Fed government billions. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, there should be no differences in V2V practices between ground and air. A computer is a computer is a computer, whether it be a drone or a Terminator. edit: clarified to avoid accidental misimpression that i violate campaign finance law My Imaginary GF has issued a correction as of 01:21 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Concordat posted:Self driving cars are going to be poo poo for a long rear end time just like how touchscreen displays, portable phones, and VR were played around with in the 80s and 90s but it was too godawful to be used for anything till almost 20 years later. so level 2 autonomous vehicles are pretty goddamn uniquitous. What ya find are issues with L3 and L2 AVs sharing infrastructure and unclear OEM advertising when it comes to establishing common language for minimums of functionality to differentiate between L2 & L3 vehicles, let alone L4
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:in a mind-bending twist, all of the idiot pedestrians in ethical quandaries are actually avatars of the vehicular mind just loving with you using its spare biomass veering off topic, but this happened to come up in another context, so i give you the closest thing we've got to a knife missile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fulJntRSHkA
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Duscat posted:veering off topic, but this happened to come up in another context, so i give you the closest thing we've got to a knife missile now turn into a dildo is there already an iain m banks thread? e: sorry everyone, of loving course there is do you think elon musk actually gets banks? their politics don't seem to match
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
you are a loving idiot jesus titty loving christ not everything is about politics motherfucker did you 'get' starship troopers? do you think anyone alive 'gets' star trek?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
yes but god willing the police will catch them in time
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
The thing about these questions is that they're always asked as if the person in them has time to think about what the most ethical thing to do is, when in fact all you have is a split second of reaction time. Assuming that I've already seen Grandma and discovered my breaks were out by trying to break for her I'm probably going to swerve, and since I drive on the right I'm probably going to swerve to the right. Whether or not people are in my way I probably won't be able to react fast enough to stop from hitting them. In other words the dumb jaywalker caused an accident that may have either killed me or killed other people. Either way it's not my fault, even if I'm the one who lives with the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
the most ethical thing to do is plow through the guys on the sidewalk, quickly powerslide into grandma and then punch straight through the railing and into the ravine, saving everyone from the nightmare that is reality
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:you are a loving idiot jesus titty loving christ not everything is about politics nah I voted so I'm technically not an idiot have you actually read banks? it's quite political. if no, we can continuing discussing your shame here. If yes, I will cover the cost of your flight to albuquerque. bring lube starship troopers anvil drops libertarianism, star trek just does trolley problems fun as they are, banks actually analyses the future of a human society. Difficult to read without having to absorb a lot of criticism of economics that aren't full anarcho-communism
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:01
|
|