taking over

remember this post?

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13229210&mesg_id=13229210&listing_type=search


or this one?

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12984893&mesg_id=12984893&listing_type=search


yep, I got a track record on this.


It makes me seem old....but....however....no matter how "pro-technology advancement" a person is......


How can you think several accidents/malfunctions that will cost lives (especially if trucks are involved) won't cause the companies using self-driving cars/trucks to be SUED ASTRONOMICALLY?!?

just the latest on this:


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/uber-self-driving-vehicle-hits-171141094.html


Uber suspends self-driving car tests after pedestrian death


Associated Press Felicia Fonseca, Associated Press,Associated


FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) -- Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.

The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.

Uber's testing was halted after police in a Phoenix suburb said one of its self-driving vehicles struck and killed a pedestrian overnight Sunday. The vehicle was in autonomous mode with an operator behind the wheel when a woman walking outside of a crosswalk was hit, Tempe police Sgt. Ronald Elcock said.

The woman, whose name hasn't been released, died of her injuries at a hospital.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi expressed condolences on his Twitter account and said the company is working with local law enforcement on the investigation.

The federal government has voluntary guidelines for companies that want to test autonomous vehicles, leaving much of the regulation up to states.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is considering other voluntary guidelines that it says will help foster innovation. But Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao also has said technology and automobile companies need to allay public fears of self-driving vehicles, citing a poll showing that 78 percent of people fear riding in autonomous vehicles

The number of states considering legislation related to autonomous vehicles gradually has increased each year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2017 alone, 33 states introduced legislation.

California is among those that require manufacturers to report any incidents to the motor vehicle department during the autonomous vehicle testing phase. As of early March, the agency received 59 such reports.

but its not like humans don't run folks over.

Y'all buy those labels, I was born supreme

If a business keeps getting sued for multiple accidents....."out of business."

_______________________________________

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

aren't necessarily going to make the cost of these companies that use self-driving care "reasonable" in any estimation.

if they aren't more dangerous than humans, then insurance for them will be less than it is for humans.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>If a business keeps getting sued for multiple
>accidents....."out of business."

The sad irony is I was just hearing about this last week.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/14/technology/self-driving-car-senate-loophole/index.html

This is the ultimate goal. While they're voluntarily stopping testing right now, once the AI and money are right and the risk is reduced to some "acceptable" level, it's going to be full speed ahead.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

"sign away" lawsuit rights


but.....

if self-driving cars (truck?) prove to be very accident prone, lawmakers can pass laws to ban them on a widespread level (no matter what company wants to use the technology).


I know some will say "the lawmakers will want to do whatever the business want"

but...

Politicians get elected saying what the public want to hear...and...if there are enough self-driving car/truck accidents, the public will want to hear a politician promising to ban self-driving vehicles.


edit: the legislation in the article seems to refer mainly to the customer riding in a self-driving vehicle. If the person injured wasn't the customer but a pedestrian or someone in a vehicle hit by the self-driving vehicle, then I don't think that legislation stops those lawsuits.

What makes being sued a bigger issue for autonomous car makers than any other manufacturer?

Like almost any other industry, they just need to determine what's an an acceptable rate of accidents and suits/settlements that they can cover based on their expected revenue.

Some of these automakers will be more aggressive than others. Ultimately, though, the company that lasts will be the ones that correctly estimate and limit their risk through better technology and getting government to give them some protections.

Attempting to force those that are injured as riders is already evidence they're trying to limit their potential risk.

Eventually, there'll be precedent set in courts about how responsibility is adjudicated but you know these companies are already devising how they're going to respond to lawsuits.

At worst, I'd say the 2020 predictions are little too premature but they'll easily be coming in our generation. I mean, they're essentially here, they're just not safe enough to be released at scale yet.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

like you said, people run over people all the time. its' a numbers game. self-driving cars will never be perfect, but i think they can make them statistically safer than humans within a relatively short amount of time. I'm mostly curious to see how 'forgiving' the public is of self-driving vehicles vs humans. With humans we just accept it as part of the cost of doing business. We don't seem to be there with self driving cars yet.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

it'll be paradigm shift since a lot us actually like driving. the lawmakers and tech folks will figure out enough to try limiting the number of incidents related to these autobot cars.

Y'all buy those labels, I was born supreme

Are you looking for a zero failure rate? That's what it seems like when individual incidents are used to argue that the technology won't work.

Also what were the circumstances of this accident? Is it something that could have been preventable with a driver in place?

_______________________________________

If self-driving keeps messing up, the businesses won't be able to keep paying the lawsuits.

driven by someone busy texting is bearing down on you "at least my estate will be able to sue them"


bro

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Faulty analogy.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

and it will get worse before it gets better.

Accidents happen

I still think it’s a long way off because we don’t like giving up our freedom

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

completely fucked up thing for me to say, this i know.

***********************************************************
https://soundcloud.com/swageyph/yph-die-with-me

...then nothing can be done about that.

*Ahem*

How many of you would say: "Technology is so advanced, etc. etc. that I'm sure there can be created robots that can do all sorts of invasive surgery?"


Most (if not all) people want a human to do invasive surgery because a human can react to a human body and organs moving around and pulsating during surgery more "responsively" than a machine can.

Even with that, doctors have messed up in surgery (see Dr. Dean Lorich who supposed messed up football player Michael Cox and was driven to suicide due to the consequences of that situation - Michael Cox sued him for supposedly messing up)

So, we trust human doctors over machines for surgery and if a doctor messes up he or she can be sued...

So....

why would society trust machines over humans to "thread the needle" over these "wide to narrow" roads with various type of pedestrian activity alongside these roads....AND THEN....why would society want to make it so these self-driving companies CAN'T BE SUED IF THEY MESS UP? (just like society wants human doctors to do surgery .....yet.....doctors can still be sued if they "mess up")

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

ask yourself why you're here

of yourself now.

It is my responsibility.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

too bad

then things would've gone better.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://i.imgur.com/c7c8aDx.jpg

_______________________________________

>why would society trust machines over humans to "thread the
>needle" over these "wide to narrow" roads with various type of
>pedestrian activity alongside these roads....AND THEN....why
>would society want to make it so these self-driving companies
>CAN'T BE SUED IF THEY MESS UP? (just like society wants human
>doctors to do surgery .....yet.....doctors can still be sued
>if they "mess up")


They also lie about using said smart phone when they do get into accidents, in order to evade consequences.

Meanwhile, I see that little yellow detection light on the mirrors glow nearly every time I'm next to the car on my motorcycle. Yet I've had three people almost merge into me this week already.

Yeah, I'll take tech over human gross negligence in this area.

then I think at least a couple people would let a robot repair their acl.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and it's not gonna be stopped lol

fighting it just makes it worst...kinda like self checkout

=======================================
Coolin...

most people believe human doctors are necessary...yet that doesn't stop people from suing human doctors if they mess up.

So...'


people can say self-driving cars are necessary/inevitable, but....if the companies behind self-driving cars (or who used the technology) keep getting sued, will they be able to deal with lawsuits or laws that are passed to ban them?

technology will not advance further. it may get worse before it gets better, but there will be a growth process that involves human injury.

the automachine will improved and the view that people currently have will change.

and robots are doing some surgeries now along with docs. insurance comps will adjust who they cover and the law will do the same. it won't be perfect since that's pretty impossible, but it will get better.

I'm not even advocating for driver-less, but at some point it'll be safer than what we have now.

Y'all buy those labels, I was born supreme

>if the companies behind self-driving cars (or who used
>the technology) keep getting sued, will they be able to deal
>with lawsuits or laws that are passed to ban them?

they will definitely be able to handle law suits...unless it's like a serious class action joint like tobacco/lead paint

they will just go back and upgrade the technology to an acceptable error/fail rate

=======================================
Coolin...

are discussing. That's not how analogies are suppose to work.

For the sake of your analogy though, if we reached the point where robots performed surgeries more safely than humans, I would opt for the robot.

And if there are certain surgeries that humans perform better than robots, I would prefer the humans.

It's that simple and can be based on cold hard statistics and logic.

Same goes for cars. I am going to go with whichever is safer every time if everything else remains equal.





>*Ahem*
>
>How many of you would say: "Technology is so advanced, etc.
>etc. that I'm sure there can be created robots that can do all
>sorts of invasive surgery?"
>
>
>Most (if not all) people want a human to do invasive surgery
>because a human can react to a human body and organs moving
>around and pulsating during surgery more "responsively" than a
>machine can.
>
>Even with that, doctors have messed up in surgery (see Dr.
>Dean Lorich who supposed messed up football player Michael Cox
>and was driven to suicide due to the consequences of that
>situation - Michael Cox sued him for supposedly messing up)
>
>So, we trust human doctors over machines for surgery and if a
>doctor messes up he or she can be sued...
>
>So....
>
>why would society trust machines over humans to "thread the
>needle" over these "wide to narrow" roads with various type of
>pedestrian activity alongside these roads....AND THEN....why
>would society want to make it so these self-driving companies
>CAN'T BE SUED IF THEY MESS UP? (just like society wants human
>doctors to do surgery .....yet.....doctors can still be sued
>if they "mess up")


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

While there are situations where human cognition is superior to a computers (such as being able to improvise in a new situation), most of the mistakes humans make while driving are due to the weaknesses of being human.

We get tired, we get distracted, we get emotional, we get drunk, we get old, we lose out eyesight, and sometimes we just make stupid, impulsive decisions.

If you look at the most common reasons for car accidents, you'll see this... speeding, drunk driving, running red lights, etc.

Technology to get cars to reliably follow traffic signals, road signs, adjust to road conditions, etc is already largely there though they're really working on putting alot of miles on these vehicles so they can discover as many edge cases as possible before they go mainstream (the biggest risk is other human drivers right now).

I think they can get things to a point where the accidents will either be human error (in terms of the pedestrian or other driver that's hit) or due to a defect in hardware (which can be estimated and managed).

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

this is a lot like guns for self defense or the cyclical drug crises

i don't disagree with you about the barriers, but this isn't even about lawsuits.

this is about people living under the delusion that they have control.

our tort system is built on that illusion of control, that they can compensate for the statistics by just being awesome.

I'd rather have a single function robot that specializes in the procedure perform, than the God complex doctor who Netflix and chilled the night before. And in both cases should something go wrong the hospitals liability still exists even if the doctors reputation may be at risk. Insurance will cover both but only one could ever be guilty of gross negligence.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

This is really happening.

this is 1 and we don't know the circumstances.

confirmation bias.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Bad comparison.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>Bad comparison.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

that is why you have insurance and it is hassle to get insurance to pay up, but you have a BILLION DOLLAR corporation that is responsible for deaths and no individual to pin blame on that will most certainly sink their business.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.

It's ok.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

thanks

.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

yeah companies will be sued, in these early stages it will be hard to predict. some companies might go out of business but not most. not due to accidents.

ai will get smarter, worst case pedestrians will not be allowed on paths crossing roads but i dont even think that will be necessary.

every vehicle being switched to autonomous right now with current ai would greatly improve safety. would be smarter to keep waiting for improvements.

whether it becomes 10x safer to have self-driven cars or not.

They certainly didn't shut down aviation after the first plane crash.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

fugg Uber greedy greasy bastards.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

a human driver wouldn't be liable in that situation so there's no way Uber will be liable either.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-uber-self-driving-car-likely-not-at-fault-in-fatal-crash/

The chief of the Tempe Police has told the San Francisco Chronicle that Uber is likely not responsible for the Sunday evening crash that killed 49-year-old pedestrian Elaine Herzberg.

“I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident," said Chief Sylvia Moir.

Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic."

After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway."

Moir added that "it is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available."

The police said that the vehicle was traveling 38 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone, according to the Chronicle—though a Google Street View shot of the roadway taken last July shows a speed limit of 45 miles per hour along that stretch of road.

At a Monday afternoon press conference, Tempe Sgt. Ronald Elcock said that there were no signs that the vehicle slowed down before striking Herzberg.

Moir's comments are obviously a promising sign for Uber, but they are not the final word on the tragedy. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board have been dispatched to the scene to collect evidence and make an independent assessment.

And even if Uber is not legally at fault, critics may ask whether the vehicle could have done more to anticipate the possibility that the woman might step in front of the Uber vehicle and take appropriate defensive measures—perhaps slowing down or changing lanes to give her a wider berth.

_______________________________________

it's not a final determination.

having seen the video now, I don't think many people can make the argument a human would've seen and avoided her.

that said, I think the sensors are supposed to and should've done a better job and uber has a lot of questions to answer.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

That's not good...if the car had hit her at say 15 mph and not 38, she probably would have lived.

Like others have said, we're still in the earliest stages of all of this--both technically and legislatively. We WILL get there eventually. MY fear is that the tech cheerleaders want this so bad that they are trying to rush the process (not the companies, I mean the journalists and internet fanboys)--and they will create a backlash of people who will point to stories like this to make their case.

and it should 've braked at least SOME. I'm not 100% sure that it didn't, the framerate isn't great and we don't have the data, which should tell us exactly.

but the reaction time of an automated system is supposed to be better than a human, and not the same.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/video-uber-driver-looks-down-for-seconds-before-fatal-crash/

i am not sure how visible the person was before they showed up on camera but the driver should be paying attention.

in this specific incident it may not had made a difference but they should be paying attention.

if a person would see what the camera saw then i would say a human driver would have had the same result. as said above, these cars are supposed to be able to detect this kind of stuff and be better than human drivers. im interested to see what they determined went wrong.

did the ladar malfunction? was there something about this scenario that wasn't accounted for?

sad situation.

and I can't front, a normal driver probably doesn't see her until the last minute and prolly hits her. IT's like she appeared out of thin
air.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>and I can't front, a normal driver probably doesn't see her
>until the last minute and prolly hits her. IT's like she
>appeared out of thin
>air.
>
>

true

---------------------------
Signature