In the news

If my chauffeur crashes my rolls whilst I'm in the back it's his bally fault and he'll be punished according, same when Jenkins's is a robot.

None of this will be a problem when humans are networked.

Whaddya mean 'when'? All the vaxxed sheeple have been already - they're just waiting to be activated...

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

Bit or train drivers who still manned a fully autonomous trains.

Tugenhat can do one. He's as bad as the rest.
(Local MP)

Differing consequences of the same actions is tricky - but its all about the checks and balances to prevent it.

Write bad code on your raspberry pi - it doesnt work.
Write bad code for your self driving tesla - someone dies.

You'd hope the checks on the latter mean that the software folks themselves are not liable.

I always think back to the ferry that sank because they didn't close the door properly. Forget to close the door on your warehouse because you were having nap - some stuff might get nicked. Forget to close the door on your ferry because you had a nap- 192 people die.

Is it any different to the engineers who design the (non-automated) cars, boats, planes or buildings? Incorrect calculations (cf code) can and do cause accidents and deaths.

Then the QA/QC functions need to carry a lot of weight and sway (and be regulated as such). Maybe mirror the pharma industry, which (despite some glaring problems in certain areas - e.g. lobbying, etc.) does cite a person responsible for signing off safety of products - i.e the Qualified Person/QP, who can go to jail for signing off bad batches of product.

I would bet the industry will lobby for and get the responsibility to be with the 'driver' though.

Why? Your employment contract will almost certainly include a clause which says any work you do will be owned by the employer. IANAL, but such a clause will make the job of apportioning blame to you very difficult in the event of a legal case.

That guy who deliberately designed the flaw in the exhaust ports of the Death Star though, would he have been covered by corporate responsibility against claims from the families of Stormtroopers or civilian contractors?

I look forward to them tbh. The beginning of the end of punishment passes and aggressive engine revving. Cycling will be bliss

Cycling will be Zwift

I'll have my autonomous bicycle do my zwifting for me

Unsuprisingly our Prime Minister lied to parliament again over the Nowzad Afghanistan evacuation. Emails confirming it was his decision to airlift the animals out now released which he said was complete nonsense.
Just fuck off you lying cunt.

Who wants to bet this was Nut Nuts' doing?

She's gonna be his downfall

No, he will definitely be his own downfall, no matter who else he wants to blame.

^ this, over and over again.

Sure, whatever, if there's any distinction. What I mean is the events/factors that are about to bring him down are the parties, the wallpaper, Cummings being vindictive, and the animal evacuation is minor but catastrophically timed. All of which she appears to have had a hand in

The sheer fuckery of this is exhausting.

And now they've kicked the anti corruption bill in the long grass, but sure, this is more entertaining so on the front pages it goes.

The self driving thing I find interesting because as a society we (I don't mean us on this forum I mean the car loving society) seem to be able to accept a huge level of risk that cars pose to us as long as a human can be blamed.

How many innocent deaths are acceptable when humans are involved compared to when computers are in charge?

It's like taking the human control out of the equation suddenly makes "greater than zero" deaths unpalatable.

You currently accept a huge number of deaths for the convenience of cars, why won't you accept the same amount when a person isn't in control?

It's an odd one isn't it. I wonder if it is linked to a view that the human way to do something wrong is to fail on a moral basis, which is why it's very difficult to get driving prosecutions to stick on the basis that the driver is simply incompetent. If they didn't mean to hurt anyone then it's not their fault. In contrast, computers can't fail morally at something (the morality of embedding imperfect algorithms in them is on the developer) they can only fail technically and so the bar of actual performance is set correspondingly higher.

See news just in from Birmingham - woman and child in pushchair driven into on the pavement...(and of course the awful language around this as ever 'collision between car and pedestrians').

A spokesman for West Midlands Ambulance Service said: “We were called to reports of a collision between a car and pedestrians on Hollyfield Road South at 11.32am on Wednesday (January 26).
“Two ambulances, two paramedic officers and the West Midlands Care Team were sent to the scene.
“On arrival we discovered two pedestrians, a woman and a baby, who had been injured in the incident.
“The woman was treated for serious injuries, not believed to be life-threatening, before being taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham.
“The baby was treated for potentially serious injuries before being taken to Birmingham Children’s Hospital for further assessment. The car driver, a woman, was assessed and discharged at the scene.”

I've always assumed it's the premeditated sterility of an algorithm.
A wrong judgement call in the heat of the moment is OK, but if you prioritise occupant safety in your self-driving algorithm it feels more like pre-meditated murder.

The car driver, a woman, was assessed and discharged at the scene.”

Not arrested?

Apparently not. Though it is from notable shitrag, the Brum Mail, so not necessarily accurate reporting.