In the news

It would also by default put onus on the driver for anything less than autonomous.

Shit news for Hotpoint if your washing machine’s a Miele.

When something sounds like it’s going to create more problems than it’s going to solve it’s not worth doing.

But if the self driving isn't in control 100% of the time and requires the driver to take over when it gets tricky you can be almost certain that the driver will not be paying attention when it happens and will have forgotten what to do/how to handle a car.

I'd love to remove human drivers but it needs to be level 5 or it is worse IMHO.

Hotpoint have mugged me a few times. Warranty my arse.

I can't say I really believe yet that Johnson will be defenestrated. Report, shmeport, the evidence is completely clear by now that his position's untenable, but that's not what decides whether he will go. After all that bluster about the letters to Graham Brady, nothing seems to have happened on that front. Johnson himself is an irrelevant power vacuum whose very weakness can do a lot of damage, but he is backed by some of the most powerful and most corrupt interests on the planet, and it's ultimately they who will decide. The Tory Party has completely sold itself out to them and holds very little power. Never mind that they are formally in power, they just dance to a tune that's played for them.

I very much hope to be proven wrong, although the other options for 'Prime Minister' are, of course, likewise rather unpleasant to contemplate.

But if the self driving isn't in control 100% of the time and requires the driver to take over when it gets tricky you can be almost certain that the driver will not be paying attention when it happens and will have forgotten what to do/how to handle a car.

I'd love to remove human drivers but it needs to be level 5 or it is worse IMHO.

The big unknown is where we will be with ancillary tech in the future when attitudes and infrastructure have changed enough to support widespread autonomous vehicles. Things like "round the corner cameras", one of a fair few emergent techs, which clearly have the potential to do things that humans cannot.

https://physicsworld.com/a/shadowy-algorithm-allows-digital-camera-to-see-round-corners/

Its quite hard to look 10 or 15 years into the tech future, but I totally get your point of view though. Its an issue that needs to be solved.

I mean, computers do set things more consistently and efficiently than humans. They don't get tired. They don't get drunk. They don't get angry. Driving a car safely is a relatively simple thing. It feels like a doomed prediction to say that humans will always be able to outperform computers in relatively simple on the hoof decision making.

On self-driving cars, the real question for me is whether we should even have them, and my answer to that is a resounding 'no'. People imagine these techno-fantasist futures as sketched out by rubbish 20th-century science fiction writers, but that's not what would happen if they became available, worked well, and were widely adopted. They would cause a further decline in physical activity (whose negative impact would far outstrip the pain and heartache caused by traffic crashes at the moment), undermine the viability of public transport, push aside the active modes, cause an even more vastly increased consumption of finite resources, including vastly-increased road-building, and make a huge contribution to the further disorganisation of our world. Their use would probably further increase global injustice, too. Do not want.

Of course, once you've accepted that they're inevitable or even think that they're a good thing, then you can deal with those small, inconsequential questions that are mostly just unsolvable moral dilemmas, i.e. you can't make a decision that is right. Whichever path you choose is wrong, in various different ways.

if they became available, worked well, and were widely adopted. They would cause a further decline in physical activity

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather not be on "Elon's side" here, but surely it's a better outcome that it crashes into the moon (or break up on Earth re-entry for that matter) than be left in an uncontrollable orbit.

There have been plenty of probes/landers in the past few years that have ended their journey by impacting the moon, whether intentionally or not.

Glad I'm not the only one who had that thought!

But if the self driving isn't in control 100% of the time and requires the driver to take over when it gets tricky you can be almost certain that the driver will not be paying attention when it happens and will have forgotten what to do/how to handle a car.

Direct precedents for this in aviation where pilots have become progressively deskilled by automation, and have on occasion failed dramatically when required to take over and demonstrate basic handling skills (see Air France 447).

However as disturbing as this is when considering individual cases, it is also true that flying overall has become orders of magnitude safer, coincident with the advance of automation.

However as disturbing as this is when considering individual cases, it is also true that flying overall has become orders of magnitude safer, coincident with the advance of automation.

Spot on. Commercial aviation accidents peaked in the 70s (although this includes a few terrorism incidents) and have declined, in line with technology, since.
In 1972, on average, one commercial airline crashed every week. In 2014, it was less than one a month. If you adjust for how much passenger journeys have increase during that period (x5+), the safety increase is incredible.

The Tory Party has completely sold itself out to them and holds very little power. Never mind that they are formally in power, they just dance to a tune that's played for them.

Who are you thinking of here?

That idea that you could go to prison for manslaughter if your code isn't perfect is troublesome as a software guy. I'd turn that job down

ancillary tec

This is a really good point. What if all driverless cars are networked? What if you have an AI machine plugged into that and all the cameras? There are so many other variables.

The difficulties of driverless cars is predominantly a commercial one imo*.

I'd also add that most of this is a problem foe insurance, more than people. If I crash into someone it's not me who covers the damages even if I'm at fault.

*stolen in part from Stuart Russell https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b00729d9

It's not likely to be you though is it? It'll be the company employing you who owns the IP.

If you strap a washing machine to the front of an autonomous vehicle and then run over a child, does Elon Musk have to have a fight with Hotpoint?

If you trust a large, well-resourced company not to throw you under the (self-driving) bus.

None of this will be a problem when humans are networked. How's a non-malicious autonomous car going to hit a person it knows the intentions of?

matrix.gif

That's fixable by legislation though - vicarious liability is a normal thing (i.e. company responsible for acts of employees)

I think the scope for improvements in road safety are much greater than in aviation. In aviation, the automatics took over from professional, highly skilled and motivated humans who had been selected for their abilities and were regularly checked to ensure they remained competent.

With cars, they’ll be taking over from Bob who has had a couple of pints and was last assessed for his ability to drive a car four decades ago.

Animals are autonomous and make decisions independent of your inputs, regardless of how ‘in control’ you are.