Self-driving cars: Motorists will not be liable for crashes and can watch TV behind the wheel, government says

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

or it is a bus.

/Rainier Wolfcastle

 

[SpookyFrank]

Autonomous cars use more energy as they are driven by many more computers and have many more cameras and sensors all of which use energy.
A vehicle to cover dozens of passengers; if a private car the insurers would not like it, or it is a bus.

Yeah no it's a bus. I was doing a bit.

 

[BigTom]

Autonomous cars use more energy as they are driven by many more computers and have many more cameras and sensors all of which use energy.
A vehicle to cover dozens of passengers; if a private car the insurers would not like it, or it is a bus.

Counterpoint: Those computers can most likely drive the car in a far more energy efficient manner than most people can (or will), especially if the cars become actively linked and communicating with each other and traffic lights.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I suspect they’ll be worse for errant children than what we already have - how could they possibly read a situation that is happening off the road that would cause a motorist to slow down in case a child runs out into the road?
My other concern would be that it would be the perfect way for some isis loon to turn their bomb into a missile of sorts.

 

[scifisam]

I think your overlooking that this wasn't initially about @Hashtag specifically it was the implication made by another poster that ALL district nurses needed to use cars. That Is what got me started.

It's hash tag you keep trying to persuade to cycle though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I won't be in favour of self-driving cars until we reach a point where it can be demonstrated that the computers in control have an understanding of what they are doing and so are able adapt to unforeseen circumstances.

We're nowhere near that point yet.

AI developer Gary Marcus is in a minority in his field in believing that there are limits to machine self-learning. He's very sceptical about driverless cars and thinks we may still be a very long way away from them.

This podcast covering Marcus's ideas is worth a listen.

when the stakes are high, I don’t think the tools we have right now are up to it, driving is another example, it’s easy to build a car that can follow a lane, you can have like 70 hours of training data and video to show this and you can follow a lane and that’s great, but it doesn’t mean that you will know what to do on a snowy day, and so we have to be very careful about the laws around driver-less cars and right now, I think Elon Musk is beta testing on public roads, I don’t think that’s cool.

184 | Gary Marcus on Artificial Intelligence and Common Sense – Sean Carroll

 

[WouldBe]

I won't be in favour of self-driving cars until we reach a point where it can be demonstrated that the computers in control have an understanding of what they are doing and so are able adapt to unforeseen circumstances.

I'd be just as concerned about the 3 hour break in a journey while it decides to install an update.

 

[hash tag]

I'd be just as concerned about the 3 hour break in a journey while it decides to install an update.

Imagine you are on the motorway and a computer freezes and the only way out is to reboot

 

[spanglechick]

I wonder, instead of autonomous cars which take up the same amount of space and use the same amount of energy as normal cars, why not get a single large vehicle that can carry dozens of passengers at once? Instead of expensive and potentially fallible self-driving tech, these vehicles could be operated by a single professional driver. Then people who don't want to drive could still get where they need to be and traffic and pollution would be greatly reduced.

For longer distances and on routes where large numbers of people need to travel, multiple large vehicles could be connected together and controlled by a single human operator. They could even be given special metal roads to run on, to increase speed and energy efficiency and to keep them separate from the rest of the road network.

As these innovations would benefit the general public rather than just private individuals, they could be funded from general taxation. This would create beneficial economies of scale and ensure that transport services were available to all, regardless of economic or social status.

Ah, forgive an old fool his impossible pipe dreams. Of course it's much more important that the business cunts in their audis can finally watch porn on their way to work.

But a solution that people actually want to adopt is better than one they will only use if you force them.

Lots of people don’t want to use public transport. It’s always going to be less convenient and less private and less secure - even if you can solve the problems of it being more expensive, more time-consuming and more uncomfortable.

You favour compelling people. Banning private vehicles. And huge public investment in public transport. Ethically, I doubt many would argue with that - but is any neoliberal government going to do something so totalitarian?

So if a safer, more sustainable outcome can be achieved through AI and renewables, people will volunteer to make the change, and pay all the costs of doing so themselves.

 

[8ball]

But a solution that people actually want to adopt is better than one they will only use if you force them.

Lots of people don’t want to use public transport. It’s always going to be less convenient and less private and less secure - even if you can solve the problems of it being more expensive, more time-consuming and more uncomfortable.

You favour compelling people. Banning private vehicles. And huge public investment in public transport. Ethically, I doubt many would argue with that - but is any neoliberal government going to do something so totalitarian?

So if a safer, more sustainable outcome can be achieved through AI and renewables, people will volunteer to make the change, and pay all the costs of doing so themselves.

You both make good points and as of now they are sadly not properly reconcilable.

If we could make public transport hugely less expensive it would be a start with coming to something better.
It's bizarre that it's much cheaper for me to drive a car by myself a large distance than to hop on a train.

 

[SpookyFrank]

But a solution that people actually want to adopt is better than one they will only use if you force them.

Lots of people don’t want to use public transport. It’s always going to be less convenient and less private and less secure - even if you can solve the problems of it being more expensive, more time-consuming and more uncomfortable.

You favour compelling people. Banning private vehicles. And huge public investment in public transport. Ethically, I doubt many would argue with that - but is any neoliberal government going to do something so totalitarian?

So if a safer, more sustainable outcome can be achieved through AI and renewables, people will volunteer to make the change, and pay all the costs of doing so themselves.

There's no way to replace the world's fleet of private vehicles with electric equivalents, autonomous or otherwise. Not enough lithium on the planet. I'm not compelling anyone to scale back private vehicle use, it's simply a fact that it has to be done.

I've never advocated banning private vehicles outright anyway. I think that single-person or single-family vehicles should be a shared social resource and not a hoarded private resource but that's what I think about most things. And if autonomous vehicles can be used to drop people off at home or work and then return to base or pick up someone else, so that everyone doesn't need two cars on their own driveway (or blocking the streets and pavements, which is where most people actually store their cars) then that'd be wonderful but that's not the model anyone is pursuing. Autonomous cars, if they ever exist, will be a boondoggle for the wealthy and not a solution to any real problem facing the rest of us.

 

[SpookyFrank]

So if a safer, more sustainable outcome can be achieved through AI and renewables, people will volunteer to make the change, and pay all the costs of doing so themselves.

And people who can't pay because every penny coming in is already going straight back out?

Of course there must be social investment to solve social issues. The cost of leaving it all up to the market and utterly discredited ideas about 'rational actors' will be far higher.

 

[8ball]

There's no way to replace the world's fleet of private vehicles with electric equivalents, autonomous or otherwise. Not enough lithium on the planet.

The plan isn't to use lithium in the longer term, but your point is very pertinent. Unless we find an alternative there is no way private vehicles can continue to operate in the long term.
It's not like everything but private vehicles could operate in the absence of fossil fuels either.

 

[8ball]

The cost of leaving it all up to the market and utterly discredited ideas about 'rational actors' will be far higher.

No one has taken that stuff about rational actors seriously for decades.
Some of them pretend they believe it when it suits them.

 

[spanglechick]

And people who can't pay because every penny coming in is already going straight back out?

Of course there must be social investment to solve social issues. The cost of leaving it all up to the market and utterly discredited ideas about 'rational actors' will be far higher.

The people who can’t pay don’t need persuading to stop driving.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The people who can’t pay don’t need persuading to stop driving.

So you can't see a distinction between someone who can just about afford to keep a 20 year old petrol car running and someone who can afford a brand new electric car, has a private driveway to park it on and is able to get a car charger installed because they own their home?

On the one hand it's fuck investing in public transport, on the other it's fuck everyone who can't afford a brand new robot car. Starting to look like your plan is for an awful lot of people to just stay at home and rot. I'll leave it to you to explain that to them.

 

[8ball]

So you can't see a distinction between someone who can just about afford to keep a 20 year old petrol car running and someone who can afford a brand new electric car, has a private driveway to park it on and is able to get a car charger installed because they own their home?

I'm in the first group. I just keep the old banger for occasional long trips and lugging heavy stuff about (tbf it's not a significant expense for me).
I mostly use public transport otherwise.

I'd happily forego owning a car if this wasn't the cheapest option.

 

[Elpenor]

So you can't see a distinction between someone who can just about afford to keep a 20 year old petrol car running and someone who can afford a brand new electric car, has a private driveway to park it on and is able to get a car charger installed because they own their home?

On the one hand it's fuck investing in public transport, on the other it's fuck everyone who can't afford a brand new robot car. Starting to look like your plan is for an awful lot of people to just stay at home and rot. I'll leave it to you to explain that to them.

I think this is the key thing, with electric cars, and also renewable energy solutions. It’s easy for someone well off to take advantage of the cost saving benefits, and boost their eco friendly credentials.

 

[8ball]

I think this is the key thing, with electric cars, and also renewable energy solutions. It’s easy for someone well off to take advantage of the cost saving benefits, and boost their eco friendly credentials.

Being poor has always been more expensive.

 

[hash tag]

I think this is the key thing, with electric cars, and also renewable energy solutions. It’s easy for someone well off to take advantage of the cost saving benefits, and boost their eco friendly credentials.

Sadly true for so many things in life including prepay meters, not to mention bulk buys at supermarkets.

 

[spanglechick]

So you can't see a distinction between someone who can just about afford to keep a 20 year old petrol car running and someone who can afford a brand new electric car, has a private driveway to park it on and is able to get a car charger installed because they own their home?

On the one hand it's fuck investing in public transport, on the other it's fuck everyone who can't afford a brand new robot car. Starting to look like your plan is for an awful lot of people to just stay at home and rot. I'll leave it to you to explain that to them.

I am in the first category. But nothing switches overnight. I can’t afford a standard electric car even now, but as time goes on more and more of the used car market will be made up of second and third hand (etc) electric cars And so it will be with self driving technology. And the price of the cheapest viable used car will remain fairly stable in relation to the amount people who can just about afford them will pay. Because otherwise no one will buy them.

 

[weltweit]

My feeling is still that the variety of road conditions will mean no auto cars will be able to be in self drive all the time. What will they do when driving down narrow country lanes with overgrown hedges and no road markings? Human drivers know they can slow down and drive into the hedge by perhaps a foot or more to let oncoming cars that also know these rules to pass. How will a computer know what to do and when not to?

Anyhow back to read the thread now

 

[Crispy]

I own a car because I sometimes need it. I hate it. Needs maintaining, parking, fuelling, and don't talk to me about driving the fucking thing. Bring on the dial-a-pod autonomous future asap. I'll still do most of my travel by bike or PT, and that travel should be much more pleasant without all the a)human-operated cars careening about and b)the road space taken up by cars that aren't doing anything.

 

[weltweit]

Was it reporting this information back to anyone? Because otherwise I don't see what's spooky or intrusive about having more angles to see outside of the vehicle, or having speed limit information readily to hand.

I have an oldish Garmin satnav, it is fine for my uses though but I know when it says roundabout ahead which I know has been replaced by a junction with a traffic light, I know not to take the second exit rather to go straight on.

Equally I know when it says the speed limit is 40mph where recent changes have made it a 30 I know because I am a human who can read signs and take into account new road layouts.

Machines are fallible..

 

[weltweit]

I enjoy driving.

 

[kabbes]

I’d like a properly driverless car in the same way that I’d love a Star Trek replicator or transporter. The car is slightly more likely to happen than the Star Trek stuff, but there isn’t much in it. I’m with that Gary Marcus chap that the challenge has been heavily underestimated by AI programmers that have totally the wrong model for what intelligence is and how individuals actually manage to navigate a chaotic and changeable world. I’ve no problem in believing that a car will be able to drive on a motorway by itself. But outside of a heavily regulated environment, you need to have a model of intersubjective intention for what those sharing your environment might do next. That comes from understanding purpose, not machine learning historic behaviours.

 

[weltweit]

Automatic driverless car systems are fraught with complexity danger and legal liability.

By way of a comparison. Could something as completely simple as an electric window be deadly?

In early electric windows there were a couple of cases of a child standing on the close button and trapping themselves by the neck resulting in their deaths.

As a result for a while there were competing anti-trap systems under development.

A successful system had to detect if the window had trapped a bit of a human and stop and reverse the window a bit so they could escape.

This might seem simple enough, compared with the complexity of an automatic driverless car, but it was not without complication. The window still had to close properly if it was encountering just some ice or snow or the like on a cold morning, etc etc etc ..

If your present car has a one touch close option on its window buttons, it should have such a system, test it by trying to shut your arm in the window (only try this when your vehicle is stationary please!). I believe all German cars and GM cars have a system, I would expect all cars with electric windows, certainly with one touch up, have it by now.

Anyhow, such a system compared to a fully autonomous driverless car must be simplicity itself? yet the code to control windows ran to many many pages and because it was safety critical a number of copies were run simultaneously to avoid any coding errors in one or other version.

Why mention such a simple thing? Because something apparently simple like an electric window had many significant safety issues and killed before the development of anti-trap systems which themselves became very complex.

An auto driving car is vastly more complex as are the sensors required for perception of road limits and junction conditions, quite apart from the behaviour and intention of other road users, and there are the full range of road and weather conditions in which it will have to operate. Aircraft auto pilot systems are simplistic by comparison. There are simply so many more ways that a driverless car can get into trouble and cause an accident.

When I read people predicting the full implementation of driverless cars for all roads in all conditions, in just a few years time, I just don't think they have grasped the full complexities of the technology and software required for this to come to pass.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Problem is that complexity alone probably isn't enough. The computer system doesn't have any intentions. It doesn't understand or know anything. It also has no stake - no skin in the game, literally and figuratively. It doesn't care because it can't care. And that isn't solved by just making it more complex.

My prediction, fwiw, is that if fully automated self-driving cars do come about it will be with a completely different kind of AI from the one currently being tested. It will be different from the bottom up.

 

[weltweit]

Problem is that complexity alone probably isn't enough. The computer system doesn't have any intentions. It doesn't understand or know anything. It also has no stake - no skin in the game, literally and figuratively. It doesn't care because it can't care. And that isn't solved by just making it more complex.

To go back to my country lane example, often when encountering an oncoming vehicle the best thing to do is to get your braking done on the middle of the track where there is relatively gravel less tarmac which should permit quick deceleration without triggering your ABS and increasing your stopping distance such that only at the last moment you take to the hedge where you won't be able to brake because of a poor surface under your wheels. Would a driverless car think of this or would it have been driving so slowly as to have a tail or locals frustrated behind it?

My prediction, fwiw, is that if fully automated self-driving cars do come about it will be with a completely different kind of AI from the one currently being tested. It will be different from the bottom up.

Do you have anything in mind?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you have anything in mind?

speculating...

Something for which there is something it is like to be it. Something that models all the things that are relevant to its existence and functions by making predictions, which it then checks against the incoming stream of data from its sensors. Something that is predictive, but also has feedback loops of self-correction and appropriate error bars, and always allows for the possibility that it might be wrong. Something with some form of an embodied intelligence, that has some sense of 'me/not me'.

Problem is that I'm not so sure AI really deserves the 'I' bit yet. In many important ways, bacteria are far cleverer than any AI system yet invented. When you're asking computers to take over life functions, they are likely to need some life-like qualities.