Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Self-driving Cars
Due to my passing interest-slash-vague obsession with Elon Musk, I've been thinking about self-driving cars a lot.
If a human being is driving a car and they have an accident, they're entirely to blame. If a self-driving car hits somebody, the inventor(s) of it's software and the makers of the hardware should be to blame. Except those people are rich and have "a lot to lose", so now it's a serious ethics problem we can't properly discuss since AI isn't "it's owners responsibility".
I looked into articles on this and I found a ridiculous one on the World Economic Forum website that boiled down to "even if they do end up killing lots of old people via a utilitarian algorithm, who are we do judge the AI (that we created)*?" Another article even claimed we should just let AI police AI.
It also kind of forgets that some of these cars might be programmed for self-preservation. How many people would pay for a ridiculously expensive car knowing that it would choose to sacrifice itself in the event of a possible accident?
If a human being is driving a car and they have an accident, they're entirely to blame. If a self-driving car hits somebody, the inventor(s) of it's software and the makers of the hardware should be to blame. Except those people are rich and have "a lot to lose", so now it's a serious ethics problem we can't properly discuss since AI isn't "it's owners responsibility".
I looked into articles on this and I found a ridiculous one on the World Economic Forum website that boiled down to "even if they do end up killing lots of old people via a utilitarian algorithm, who are we do judge the AI (that we created)*?" Another article even claimed we should just let AI police AI.
It also kind of forgets that some of these cars might be programmed for self-preservation. How many people would pay for a ridiculously expensive car knowing that it would choose to sacrifice itself in the event of a possible accident?
*From the article:
Even if trolley problems were a realistic concern for AVs, it is not clear what, if anything, regulators or companies developing AVs should do about them.
Comments
y'know what would be the ideal means of transportation for a simple commute?
a self-driving bike.
a bike, because a car isn't as necessary if all you're doing is transporting yourself.
you set your destination. it self-navigates you to your destination. during that time, you have access to pedals -- but the pedals aren't for you to power the thing directly. they're there for you to recharge the battery while you get to exercise.
you also have access to a table-like surface, upon which you can place objects you wish to transport with you, but you also have your hands free to do other things if you so choose, such as watching entertainment or doing a little bit of work on your commute.
and a basket on the back can be used for carrying things like backpacks and groceries.