A Great Time To Be A Driving Enthusiast

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Enjoy sitting in your driverless car wondering what, exactly, the ethical deicsion making software will do if an emergency arises where a choice has to be made about "the greater good"...because it might just decide that the best thing to do is to kill you in an accident to "save more people" somewhere else on the road at the time...

And yes, this is a serious ethical programming question which is keeping programmers awake. They have to program a driverless car to make a choice, and one of those choices will be to cause a crash which may kill you to save others.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...ammed-to-kill/

Have you ever had to make a decision on the road which is either the death of you, or the death of more others?

What would you do in that scenario? Would you drive into the group of babies at the park, or head on into a semi?

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Have you ever had to make a decision on the road which is either the death of you, or the death of more others?

What would you do in that scenario? Would you drive into the group of babies at the park, or head on into a semi?

The point is, a human would weigh up the chances. If I was on my own, I would attempt to avoid the semi AND the hypothetical babies, fighting until the last second, weighing up a thousand choices and trying to avoid either outcome.
However, if my car was full of my grandkids, then sorry strangers, maybe some of you are going to have to pay the price.
A computer is a zero sum game...one or zero, on or off, yes or no, black or white, and even the much-lauded fuzzy logic is only a slight variation on "black or white", and can stumble badly when presented with a "grey" question. they're not at the artificial intelligence stage where they can make moral choices depending on the billion different situations that can occur. They have to be programmed with various choices...but those choices will be limited, they cannot help but be limited. Look at how, even on wide safe US highways, Teslas have come to grief by a sudden unexpected obstacle, sometimes as simple as a truck with a paintjob that blends with the cloudy sky. Will legislation be brought in of approved paint colours so as not to confuse autonomous cars?

One day, truly driverless cars will be on the roads, no doubt about it, but I foresee that they'll be only seen in carefully controlled environments like city centers and set routes, possibly routes from which "normal" cars are banned and pedestrians are separated by dividers.
The variables of mixing driverless cars with normal traffic are just way too big for any computer to be able to deal with, and probably will for decades to come.

I also love the absolute trust people would put in this particular computer...when we don't trust any other computer...one which literally has your life in your hands.

[Olbucko]

Remember Hal, the world's most advanced computer in the Film 2001, He became paranoid and killed off all the crew because he thought they would jeopardise the mission. As far as he was concerned the success of the mission was far more important than the lives of the crew.

No way I would ride in a driverless car, give me a Indian taxi driver any day.

I think the only practical application for autonomous control is driving a train, although I don't want to ride in one yet Sydney is getting a driverless metro in about 2 years Ill wait and see how it goes.

[mike_nofx]

What percentage of road accidents would be caused by human error?
Things like phone use, intoxication, speeding, fatigue, tailgating (incorrect safe gap) etc etc
I'm not sure but I'd say its extremely high, like around 90% or more are caused by human error.

Would it not be safe to say that these human error accidents would be non existent in an autonomous car?

Basically, an autonomous vehicle should encounter less hazardous situations to begin with. This will become more likely as technology improves, and more vehicles are autonomous and 'communicating' with each other not to get into hazardous situations as often as us meat bags.

Yes autonomous car technology is not perfect, but theres also a negligible amount of self driving cars on the road today. Give it 20 years and I believe things will be very different when 'trucks with a sky coloured painjob' accidents would be non existent.

There will be a day where you'd prefer your young grandchild accidentally steps in front of an autonomous vehicle which makes calculated decisions in milliseconds, over a car whose driver is looking down at a phone screen.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I also love the absolute trust people would put in this particular computer...when we don't trust any other computer...one which literally has your life in your hands.

While I think your post gives a lot of food for thought I will add this.

Recently I went a flew a jet flight simulator a Boeing 737-800NG, and was shocked at how the supposed analog controls are all digitally computerized, the throttles, the "joystick" which controls all tail rudders, and ailerons automatically- ie so computer controlled even in "manual" setting.

And this is excluding the autopilot.

And the latest airbuses are just big flying computers...when you fly nowadays with airbus etc you put your absolute trust in computers. Run into problems the pilots are computer techs working on the computers.

And about computers going rogue- isn't that what Hawkings has been warning is mankinds greatest threat in the future?

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by asagaai

While I think your post gives a lot of food for thought I will add this.

Recently I went a flew a jet flight simulator a Boeing 737-800NG, and was shocked at how the supposed analog controls are all digitally computerized, the throttles, the "joystick" which controls all tail rudders, and ailerons automatically- ie so computer controlled even in "manual" setting.

And this is excluding the autopilot.

And the latest airbuses are just big flying computers...when you fly nowadays with airbus etc you put your absolute trust in computers. Run into problems the pilots are computer techs working on the computers.

And about computers going rogue- isn't that what Hawkings has been warning is mankinds greatest threat in the future?

While I totally get what you mean,the 737 is by all means a very conventional plane...The Simulator you experienced is of course just a computer simulation...everything is computerised,it has to be,there's no aircraft attached to it. The real aircraft flight controls are steel flexible cable runs and push pull rods with hydraulic assist,industry standard for decades,very similar to your power steering. Thrust is controlled via electronic means,but if isn't smart so to speak,all it does is protect engine limits,bit like a rev limiter I guess in automotive term. Airbus is a totally different setup,total fly by wire,no mechanical connection between pilot controls and the device. Newer generation Boeings are indeed fly by wire,777 and 787, but have a very conventional pilot interface with tactile feedback and have resolved many of the issues Airbus had. But then again,pilots manage to crash a perfectly good 777 into the San Fran bay because they didn't understand the system,plus the recent 777 crash in Dubai where the go around didn't quite work out ...All in all it's actually a pretty basic system compared to the logic in sensing that will be necessary with automotive software solutions. Fly by wire was originally a fighter system,the planes are so inherently unstable to aid in manouverability it would be impossible to fly them manually,look at a fighter coming into land and watch the flight controls flapping about,likely with very little pilot input...but they have ejection systems when it goes south too!
Aviation collision avoidance is about climb or descend,real basic,one plane goes up,the other goes down,that's the solution,it can't work out a turn or speed solution,that's the current industry standard.
How will the automotive computer solution be able do differentiate between a child and a sheep or a dread locked feral for that matter? There were comments on collision avoidance tactics based on who is in my car and who was outside. A human can consider this,a computer can't go into old timer mode,thinking.."hey I've got young kids in my car and there is my mother in law out there so I'll base my decision around that scenario" . (I use the mother in law bit with toungue in cheek )
Also there will be a myriad of software updates necessary,who will be legally responsible for having them done? Who will be legally responsible if the data is corrupted during a data load? If it's all updated and there is an issue who is legally responsible? It's gonna be a minefield, and don't think the latest data won't actually introduce a new problem,happens all the time in aviation and as I say,the automotive solution will be a massively more complex scenario.

[mike_nofx]

By the time a human goes through the thought process of "ok, so over there is the annual meeting of mother in laws, in my car is my grandkids... do I rear end the corolla or plough into the mother in laws?" The autonomous vehicle has already applied the brakes and taken evasive action.

That's assuming the autonomous vehicle got into that situation to begin with. It wouldn't have been distracted, travelling too close or fast for the conditions so may have a few seconds more time to take action.

But let's be honest here. How many actual accidents happen where a driver must decide between ploughing into pedestrians or killing the vehicle occupants? Particularly, how many times does this situation arise where human error is not to blame?

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

By the time a human goes through the thought process of "ok, so over there is the annual meeting of mother in laws, in my car is my grandkids... do I rear end the corolla or plough into the mother in laws?" The autonomous vehicle has already applied the brakes and taken evasive action.

That's assuming the autonomous vehicle got into that situation to begin with. It wouldn't have been distracted, travelling too close or fast for the conditions so may have a few seconds more time to take action.

But let's be honest here. How many actual accidents happen where a driver must decide between ploughing into pedestrians or killing the vehicle occupants? Particularly, how many times does this situation arise where human error is not to blame?

How can this technology differentiate between say an animal or a human? Plenty off occasions where animals have run out in front of a car,you make the call what to do...how does an autonomous car differentiate between an animal and a child? It can't. Your travelling at two metres per second,you expect a response from the computer,it doesn't react,then assuming your on the ball you decide to take over,you have the human response time plus the time to identify there is an issue with the automation. I also must make a solution with a dumb object one something it cannot communicate a resolution with,sure other cars may be a possibility,but unpredictable objects without communication with the car?! Good luck. Let's face it,this stuff is a sell point. If we as a community we're seriously concerned with saving lives there are many other areas that need addressing with a better outcome for money invested,ie look at the suicide rates these days,I believe it's higher than the road toll....it's all about sell and there is no standardisation between manufacturers further complicating matters. Human error will always be there,just in a different perspective,look at the many many aviation accidents where highly automated planes have crashed due to human expectations and assumptions....it won't save your *** it will save you in some circumstances and cook you in new ways you will never realise exists...until your there

[mike_nofx]

You mean, how does a car do something like this?
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....e555a784a4ebfa

[XByoot]

Nope, between animal and human differniation.... "Soon" and google are pretty loose terms

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by XByoot

Nope, between animal and human differniation.... "Soon" and google are pretty loose terms

I do not mean to be off, but the other day I was in the Sydney CBD and there was this guy playing music busking for coin, had a good singing voice, but his face- literally had an appendage (" nose") that was like a baby elephant trunk, it was quite disturbing as this critical aspect of the face one could describe as unhuman in physical appearance.

But in terms of computer recognition, if he was sitting on the ground and the computer focused on his face- would it be programmed to differentiate such abnormalities as human....?

This is just the tip of the iceberg as there are so many genetic variabilities and abnormalities...

[2011G6E]

Couple of pertinent points have been made about autonomous driving...

Japanese trains. They're fully automatic, have been for many years now. But in that tech-loving futuristic country, guess what happened when they had test runs of trains with no driver up front?
The majority of people refused to get on board. So now there's a man with a spiffy uniform and white gloves sitting up front, "just in case". He doesn't handle the controls, but because people can see a human up there, they are now happy to just pour on board.

Airliners. They've been capable of taxiing, taking off, cruising, and landing all on their own for some time now. But ask yourselves this:
Would you get on board one with no flight crew...?

Thought not...

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Japanese trains. They're fully automatic, have been for many years now. But in that tech-loving futuristic country, guess what happened when they had test runs of trains with no driver up front?
The majority of people refused to get on board. So now there's a man with a spiffy uniform and white gloves sitting up front, "just in case". He doesn't handle the controls, but because people can see a human up there, they are now happy to just pour on board.

Sydney's monorail, built in 1988, was designed to be autonomous, but the unions wouldn't have a bar of it, so they put a man up the front with the daily newspaper and everybody was happy, but it still managed to have one or two serious collisions with the train in front during it's 25 year existence.

[XByoot]

The problem there is the interface between human and machine,if the driver is sitting there like a muppet totally disengaged with the machine and nothing to do of course he won't help in an emergency,but give them some type of interaction and it's a different story, or at least it adds another layer of defence,probably the best option of all really. Typical Airbus have 3 primary,3 secondary and 2 back up computers all doing the same task,but humans have still saved the day....if they are engaged to the machine and understand what's going on. The computers get bad data inputs things go bad,rubbish in rubbish out as they say,it's happened in many aviation related accidents.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by XByoot

The problem there is the interface between human and machine,if the driver is sitting there like a muppet totally disengaged with the machine and nothing to do of course he won't help in an emergency,but give them some type of interaction and it's a different story, or at least it adds another layer of defence,probably the best option of all really. Typical Airbus have 3 primary,3 secondary and 2 back up computers all doing the same task,but humans have still saved the day....if they are engaged to the machine and understand what's going on. The computers get bad data inputs things go bad,rubbish in rubbish out as they say,it's happened in many aviation related accidents.

Interesting.
However

Pilot error is the leading cause of commercial airline accidents, with close to 80% percent of accidents caused by pilot error, according to Boeing. The other 20% are mainly due to faulty equipment and unsafe, weather-related flying conditions.

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Interesting.
However

So why didn't the high levels of automation save them?? Why were the pilots even required to respond? Automation should save you every time right?? Wrong... Of course it's pilot error,I mentioned that earlier,they are the end user,when automation fails,they have to re engage with the machine and respond correctly,that's the hard bit. Look at contributing factors of many accidents... the 777 in Dubai recently,pilot error due to an automation expectation while carrying out a bread and butter manoeuvre that never happened...pilot error....contributing factors?Another 777 that landed into San Fran harbour..pilot error another automation expectation that never happened and they failed to respond. Automation isn't the devil,nor is it a savour. It will save you I many situations and create many new issues to come to terms with. Look up "children of the magenta" video on YouTube,it's an American Airlines pilot briefing on the problems and failings they have experienced,very good watch

[CyberWasp]

It will be easy to be a thief in the future with just a few friends.
All you will have to do is slowly step onto the road in front of an automated road train of trucks.
They will come to a stop while your friends raid the trailers. When finished step away from the truck and off they go again.

[.:4:.]

The only automation in cars i like is auto transmissions (my work car is a manual, stop start traffic is even more annoying), cruise control, auto up/down windows, memory seats/mirrors/pedals and abs brakes (yet to try out airbags, and don't plan to) otherwise I much rather be the driver as opposed to a passenger. How tedious would it be to be in a car that self drives and you need to push the dead man's button every minute or 2 to prove you are still alive and paying attention.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

It will be easy to be a thief in the future with just a few friends.
All you will have to do is slowly step onto the road in front of an automated road train of trucks.
They will come to a stop while your friends raid the trailers. When finished step away from the truck and off they go again.

Nope, the trucks will have robots with guns that shoot sharks at you with lazers on their heads. **** that.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by Optional

I bet our grandkids will shake their heads at the craziness of it.

I wonder what those same grandkids will the make of those of us who get around on two wheeled motorcycles that have a power to weight ratio of 1HP per KG then?

[jpblue1000]

We have a Nissan leaf autonomous car trial happening in the suburb over from where we live. Fully supported by the borough and governments. LOcals trying to develop the tech to become world leaders in a field with a view to delivery in 2020 of market ready product
Fully autonomous and hasn't killed anyone. early days in the trial but it navigates streets with traffic, the motorway, etc. only rarely does the 'driver' need to step in, usually when a real driver acts unpredictably.
Also a programme has been taught how to play an atari game and with that knowledge has taught itself how to play others...don't underestimate the tech or will of these organisations to suceed

[Grunter]

It seems some of the points above are assuming a driver is 100% focused on driving in all situations and all conditions. Reality is that is not even close to being the case, even with the most attentive and skilled drivers.

Whilst autonomous vehicle systems are both still in their infancy and being developed ongoing, anyone who believes that these systems will never be able to make the right decisions more often overall than human drivers is absolutely kidding themselves.

We tend to focus on only one or two things at any one time whilst driving. Current vehicle systems view the road ahead holistically. Not just one thing at a time, but the entire view ahead and make calculations based on what it detects, sees, etc., hundreds, if not thousands of times per second. There is no doubt that ultimately autonomous vehicles will be massively safer compared to the current world we drive in.

The "moral" choices these systems will eventually make in an unavoidable crash, will be based on not just a couple of choices (avoidance, minimising the impact of a crash, "choosing" to hit a tree over a pedestrian or not, possible injury levels to a pedestrian based on their size, and a lot more "choices" we wouldn't even think to look at, let alone choose, etc.) but calculate the probability of reducing the impact in a multitude of these and many more situations to give the best outcome over all. By the time, we have made a choice and begun to put that choice into play (any where from .3-.6 of a sec at best) the systems would have already put into play the best possible outcome for both driver and/or pedestrian, and put that into play before we have even come close to making a choice.

All in my humble opinion.

[Optional]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

if my car was full of my grandkids, then sorry strangers, maybe some of you are going to have to pay the price.

This is one of the greatest ethical issues involved.

Does the computer put a 'value' on each individual or is every human life considered equal?

Will the Prime Minister or Presidential vehicle have carte blanche to ignore the safety of all others to protect them?

If it can do that, how can regular people have confidence they won't be sacrificed more often than other people?

Will each person develop a 'life value score' over time, like a credit score?

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Pilot error is the leading cause of commercial airline accidents, with close to 80% percent of accidents caused by pilot error, according to Boeing. The other 20% are mainly due to faulty equipment and unsafe, weather-related flying conditions.

No, Human error is the factor most often BLAMED for air-crashes, because the alternative is too unpalatable.
Even when some POS death-trap, that should have been scrapped decades ago, crashes, they will miraculously uncover some "cover your ****" maintenance advisory and blame the disaster on some poor maintenance worker who failed to spot the cracks.

Sullenberger, the only man in history to successfully ditch a jet airliner with no fatalities, was initially blamed for the crash.

Care to hazard a guess why???

Because the absolutely reliable, infallible computer said that he still had power on one engine. So therefore he would have been able to recover and land safely at an airport.

It was only when they finally recovered the missing engine from the mud at the bottom of the Hudson, that they discovered the compressor was destroyed and could not possibly have been operating.
So you really want to stand in court, facing manslaughter charges, when the only evidence against you is a car's computer?

Most people don't know just how close Qantas came to recording possibly the worst air-disaster in history, when the engine on their A380 exploded.
It is one of the most technologically advanced passenger planes in existence. It has multiple redundant systems, and is capable of taking off, flying half way round the world, and landing, all by itself.
However when the engine exploded, some shrapnel went through the wing severing fuel, hydraulics, and electronics. Another massive piece sliced through the fuselage, right through their avionics.
Purely by chance, there were FOUR pilots in the cockpit that day, including not only the experienced Captain, but a Check Pilot. The vaunted computers were mostly useless, and each of those 4 pilots played a part in getting that place down safely.
Even at the end, the ground crew asked him to shut down his #1 engine, and according to the computers he already had! They had to spray foam into the engine to kill it.

[Crazy Dazz]

Unplug your router (or pull the battery from your phone, etc) THEN try replying to this thread...
In days gone by, we'd have to all be sitting in a pub or around a campfire to have this conversation. Technology is great, until it doesn't work.

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

No, Human error is the factor most often BLAMED for air-crashes, because the alternative is too unpalatable.
Even when some POS death-trap, that should have been scrapped decades ago, crashes, they will miraculously uncover some "cover your ****" maintenance advisory and blame the disaster on some poor maintenance worker who failed to spot the cracks.

Sullenberger, the only man in history to successfully ditch a jet airliner with no fatalities, was initially blamed for the crash.

Care to hazard a guess why???

Because the absolutely reliable, infallible computer said that he still had power on one engine. So therefore he would have been able to recover and land safely at an airport.

It was only when they finally recovered the missing engine from the mud at the bottom of the Hudson, that they discovered the compressor was destroyed and could not possibly have been operating.
So you really want to stand in court, facing manslaughter charges, when the only evidence against you is a car's computer?

Most people don't know just how close Qantas came to recording possibly the worst air-disaster in history, when the engine on their A380 exploded.
It is one of the most technologically advanced passenger planes in existence. It has multiple redundant systems, and is capable of taking off, flying half way round the world, and landing, all by itself.
However when the engine exploded, some shrapnel went through the wing severing fuel, hydraulics, and electronics. Another massive piece sliced through the fuselage, right through their avionics.
Purely by chance, there were FOUR pilots in the cockpit that day, including not only the experienced Captain, but a Check Pilot. The vaunted computers were mostly useless, and each of those 4 pilots played a part in getting that place down safely.
Even at the end, the ground crew asked him to shut down his #1 engine, and according to the computers he already had! They had to spray foam into the engine to kill it.

Extremely good points....throw into the equation the new age airline execs who are all about profits for the "business" who make make engineers with decades of engineering experience redundant and then outsource heavy maintenance overseas to the lowest bidder...it happens. Then the line maintenance guys have to fix all the problems,while still certifying the POS. The Airbus 380 is a very technologically advanced machine and your accounts of the Singapore incident are very true....however with all its advanced technology it's slower,burns More fuel and is more expensive to maintain than the 30 year old 747-400!! It won't be long before the 380 is retired,I believe Singapore airlines have already parked some....throw away machines, very much like cars or today and certainly of the future. The future lies with the new models of the 777 , those things are virtually Bullet proof and make even the worst airline managers look good! Strangely they are arguably not as highly automated in the fly by wire systems as the Airbus,but they are more aerodynamically efficient and better built. Sorry for the rant,I'm getting off the beaten track here.

[Rallye Sport]

Originally Posted by XR6TCraig

I wonder what those same grandkids will the make of those of us who get around on two wheeled motorcycles that have a power to weight ratio of 1HP per KG then?

Probably the same as the rest of us... ignorant suicidal fools..

Interesting to watch the auto bus in South Perth. Its getting smarter, picking up speed and dealing with obstacles... to a point... it can't cope with traffic management. The guys were out the other day with an area coned off and it shut the whole thing down.
I think we'll be heading down the train root, technology will advance to a point were it could take over but there will still be a person apparently ''in charge'' we've along way to come yet.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

I really do think it will just "work out". It won't be an overnight change. Older workers in the field will see their jobs through to retirement, younger ones will need to adapt.

What happens if robots do replace half of all workers and there is 50% unemployment. Who then buys the goods, or uses the services these robots now provide?

I hope it will all work out. Hopefully the change will be gradual so everyone has a chance to retrain / find a new job.
But I can see it causing huge problems if lots of companies push for automation ASAP.


Also if some cars are driverless and some are human controlled I can see people taking advantage of that.
"Oh look that is an autonomous car, might just push in front of it because it WILL stop for me.

Originally Posted by .:4:.

The only automation in cars i like is auto transmissions (my work car is a manual, stop start traffic is even more annoying), cruise control, auto up/down windows, memory seats/mirrors/pedals and abs brakes (yet to try out airbags, and don't plan to) otherwise I much rather be the driver as opposed to a passenger. How tedious would it be to be in a car that self drives and you need to push the dead man's button every minute or 2 to prove you are still alive and paying attention.

2 minutes? That's nothing. You don't even have to pay attention if you don't want to. After a while you just press the button without thinking about what you are doing. Ask anyone who has loaded a coal train or similar in the last 20 years. I'm sure most train drivers have sat stopped at a red signal reading a book/phone while continuously pressing the deadman button even though there is no need to press it.


But yes being a passenger in a car is boring compared to driving.
You can only read, eat, look at phone for so long before you are bored of it or feel motion sickness.

[Ben73]

added above

[Optional]

An Electric + Autonomous ute concept