HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1141  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 5:56 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 8,221
I have always thought that self-driving cars were much ado about nothing and I still do.

Even if they start to perfect the technology in all climatic conditions, the legal barriers are too great to cross. If someone is in an accident that their vehicle causes and yet the "driver" wasnt driving then who is responsible.........if you charge the "driver" that is akin to currently blaming the passenger for a driver error. Good luck getting the automakers to take responsibility. Will people even need to be able to drive or get a license for that matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1142  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 7:53 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Even if they start to perfect the technology in all climatic conditions, the legal barriers are too great to cross. If someone is in an accident that their vehicle causes and yet the "driver" wasnt driving then who is responsible.........if you charge the "driver" that is akin to currently blaming the passenger for a driver error. Good luck getting the automakers to take responsibility. Will people even need to be able to drive or get a license for that matter.
If the rate of accidents is lower without human drivers it is rational to switch to automated cars, all else being equal. For insurance purposes and assessing risk it does not really matter if there is a human driver.

The self-driving vehicle debate suffers from being abstract, with the pro-self-driving camp tending to wave their hands and assume all of the problems will obviously be solved and the anti-self-driving camp assuming that the question of adoption comes down to trolley problem type scenarios or philosophical debates around agency and culpability. In reality I suspect it all comes down to costs and reliability. If the technology becomes reliable enough it will be adopted, and until then it won't. Historically AI research has been prone to boom and bust cycles as new breakthroughs in approach or hardware create new unknown ceilings that are hit, and certain niche applications are developed while other basic and obvious applications remain out of reach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1143  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 8:08 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
Progressive Centrist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
If the rate of accidents is lower without human drivers it is rational to switch to automated cars, all else being equal. For insurance purposes and assessing risk it does not really matter if there is a human driver.

The self-driving vehicle debate suffers from being abstract, with the pro-self-driving camp tending to wave their hands and assume all of the problems will obviously be solved and the anti-self-driving camp assuming that the question of adoption comes down to trolley problem type scenarios or philosophical debates around agency and culpability. In reality I suspect it all comes down to costs and reliability. If the technology becomes reliable enough it will be adopted, and until then it won't. Historically AI research has been prone to boom and bust cycles as new breakthroughs in approach or hardware create new unknown ceilings that are hit, and certain niche applications are developed while other basic and obvious applications remain out of reach.
You would have to assume that logic will prevail, and that there will be no further repercussions from the implementation and our further dependence on technology. I think it will eventually adapt, but that doesn't account for the obstinance of human nature, and for example, my own preference of a manual shift over automatic transmission.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1144  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 8:14 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
You would have to assume that logic will prevail, and that there will be no further repercussions from the implementation and our further dependence on technology. I think it will eventually adapt, but that doesn't account for the obstinance of human nature, and for example, my own preference of a manual shift over automatic transmission.
I think a lot of this depends on what the trade-offs really are, and people are often more rational than they get credit for (with pro-technology people or salesmen arguing that others are irrational for not switching to or buying some newfangled thing that provides a nebulous payoff when you look at the full balance sheet). Some people prefer manual transmission but it's pretty low stakes. Do you think they'd pay an extra, say, $2,000 a year to be able to keep manual transmission? My understanding is manuals are a particularly bad example because they have historically been the cheaper option.

It's possible that automated cars will advance to the point where they are significantly less likely to cause accidents than human drivers, so there will be a significant incentive to switch. Right now there is no financial incentive because the self-driving cars are not even operating without back-up drivers in them, and the debates are about hypothetical future technology.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1145  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 8:31 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
Progressive Centrist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,911
^ You also have to assume that a high level of quality will exist in these vehicles, some of which may come from less than reputable sources where the reliability and consistency of technology is not assured.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1146  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 8:55 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,034
I could see there be an insurance premium calculated for each vehicle manufacturer based on accident rate for their self-driving modes. Theoretically that would be more standardized than individual rates.

Maybe the company could track hours driven in either mode on a car and calculate a premium dynamically each month?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1147  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 9:23 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
^ You also have to assume that a high level of quality will exist in these vehicles, some of which may come from less than reputable sources where the reliability and consistency of technology is not assured.
Accidents are public knowledge. If Tesla lies and says their self-driving feature is reliable when it's not it will cause a higher rate of accidents that will be easy to detect. I think safety is actually much harder to fake than, say, emissions.

Right now one of the ways the self-driving cars are being measured for progress in the US is driver interventions per mile. The accidents also get reported.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1148  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 8:28 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 5,494
We are at Atari 2600 level right now. Anybody who thinks this is "much ado about nothing" is a fool. Such a game changer on so many levels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1149  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 12:45 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
We are at Atari 2600 level right now. Anybody who thinks this is "much ado about nothing" is a fool. Such a game changer on so many levels.
We could stay at Atari 2600 levels for decades or indefinitely. Lots of technologies never proved feasible for large scale implementation despite being theoretical game changers (supersonic passenger jets, super jumbo jets, rocket packs, flying cars, nuclear powered whatever, domestic robots).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1150  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 2:28 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is offline
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 22,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
We could stay at Atari 2600 levels for decades or indefinitely. Lots of technologies never proved feasible for large scale implementation despite being theoretical game changers
Agreed. There should always be a capacity for human decision making when it comes to the operation of a personal motor vehicle.

A good example is in conflict resolution in a critical incident situation, for example a no win situation where the three choices are:

1- head on collision with a Mack truck
2- swerving to the left and hitting a small Toyota SUV containing a young family
3 - swerving to the right to and risking hitting a 90 year old lady on the sidewalk.

Which is the proper decision? Doesn't this constitute a personal moral choice? Do you want an AI performing the calculus and deciding on it's own what your choice should be? Maybe there's a fourth choice that the manufacturer had not considered during their programming?

This is a slippery slope. I would certainly contest any choice made on my behalf by an AI when the lawsuits begin to fly. I would only accept liability if the choice made was mine and mine alone.........
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1151  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 4:36 PM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
There's a whole bunc of "intuition" that goes into driving in bad conditions, along with skills learned over time. It's one reason I've awlays said occasional rideshare drivers are more dangerous than regular driver.

Here's an article on autonomous driving and poor weather:
[I]
Snow and Ice Pose a Vexing Obstacle for Self-Driving Cars
[/url]
Snow and ice pose a vexing obstacle for human drivers too, intuition or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1152  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 1:44 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 5,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
We could stay at Atari 2600 levels for decades or indefinitely. Lots of technologies never proved feasible for large scale implementation despite being theoretical game changers (supersonic passenger jets, super jumbo jets, rocket packs, flying cars, nuclear powered whatever, domestic robots).
The benefits are far too great for this to not progress. And these aren't rocket packs or flying cars, this is something that is real. Waymo is now at the stage where they don't even use a safety driver...

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1153  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 3:28 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,723
I would bet money that in 5 years time autonomous vehicles are still not in any way mainstream - as I have said before we are moving backwards, as 5 years ago everybody thought they were just around the corner, and now few have that confidence.

I used to think it was going to be mostly regulation and adaptation that would hold us back, but now I'm not even sure the technology is going to be as easy as it appeared. Turns out it wasn't as easy as they made out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1154  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 4:04 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 30,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Which is the proper decision? Doesn't this constitute a personal moral choice? Do you want an AI performing the calculus and deciding on it's own what your choice should be? Maybe there's a fourth choice that the manufacturer had not considered during their programming?

This is a slippery slope. I would certainly contest any choice made on my behalf by an AI when the lawsuits begin to fly. I would only accept liability if the choice made was mine and mine alone.........
What's likely at that point is that AIs will be insured by the companies that designed them. So if one is available to drive your car (included in the price that you paid, including liability insurance for decisions made by it), you can still choose to eschew it and drive yourself, but then you will have to pay (likely a really high premium) to get human driver liability insurance.

I'm almost certain that'll be the way it'll be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1155  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 4:15 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 5,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I would bet money that in 5 years time autonomous vehicles are still not in any way mainstream - as I have said before we are moving backwards, as 5 years ago everybody thought they were just around the corner, and now few have that confidence.

I used to think it was going to be mostly regulation and adaptation that would hold us back, but now I'm not even sure the technology is going to be as easy as it appeared. Turns out it wasn't as easy as they made out.
Maybe more impressive than the Waymo video is this video from Zoox (Amazon). 1 hour (at 2x speed), of driving through the densest parts of San Francisco with pedestrians and traffic everywhere, with unprotected left turns in heavy traffic... all in autonomous mode.

Does it really look like we are moving backwards?

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1156  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:34 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 28,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Agreed. There should always be a capacity for human decision making when it comes to the operation of a personal motor vehicle.

A good example is in conflict resolution in a critical incident situation, for example a no win situation where the three choices are:

1- head on collision with a Mack truck
2- swerving to the left and hitting a small Toyota SUV containing a young family
3 - swerving to the right to and risking hitting a 90 year old lady on the sidewalk.

Which is the proper decision? Doesn't this constitute a personal moral choice? Do you want an AI performing the calculus and deciding on it's own what your choice should be? Maybe there's a fourth choice that the manufacturer had not considered during their programming?

This is a slippery slope. I would certainly contest any choice made on my behalf by an AI when the lawsuits begin to fly. I would only accept liability if the choice made was mine and mine alone.........
How ethically appropriate of a decision do you think you could make in the split second you have between becoming aware of the situation and colliding with someone/something?!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1157  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:38 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is offline
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 22,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
How ethically appropriate of a decision do you think you could make in the split second you have between becoming aware of the situation and colliding with someone/something?!
At least it would be my decision.

Have you ever seen the movie I Robot with Will Smith.

His character was forever haunted because of an AI decision during a traffic accident based on probabilities. The AI made a decision he could not reconcile with. I can definitely see this happening...……...
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1158  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 2:50 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Agreed. There should always be a capacity for human decision making when it comes to the operation of a personal motor vehicle.

A good example is in conflict resolution in a critical incident situation, for example a no win situation where the three choices are:

1- head on collision with a Mack truck
2- swerving to the left and hitting a small Toyota SUV containing a young family
3 - swerving to the right to and risking hitting a 90 year old lady on the sidewalk.

Which is the proper decision? Doesn't this constitute a personal moral choice? Do you want an AI performing the calculus and deciding on it's own what your choice should be? Maybe there's a fourth choice that the manufacturer had not considered during their programming?

This is a slippery slope. I would certainly contest any choice made on my behalf by an AI when the lawsuits begin to fly. I would only accept liability if the choice made was mine and mine alone.........
I think no matter what, statistically speaking, you will almost always swerve to the right - just by instinct.

In an accident such as that, you don't really have enough time to consider the implications after the swerve. You first attempt to avoid the head-on collision, and from there, it's anyone's guess.

I have been in plenty of accidents, and you don't have time to hit the horn, let alone decide who you are or are not going to hit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1159  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 4:56 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 15,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
At least it would be my decision.

Have you ever seen the movie I Robot with Will Smith.

His character was forever haunted because of an AI decision during a traffic accident based on probabilities. The AI made a decision he could not reconcile with. I can definitely see this happening...……...
Absolutely. Your car is going to have to choose who to kill in an accident situation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1160  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 5:09 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Maybe more impressive than the Waymo video is this video from Zoox (Amazon). 1 hour (at 2x speed), of driving through the densest parts of San Francisco with pedestrians and traffic everywhere, with unprotected left turns in heavy traffic... all in autonomous mode.

Does it really look like we are moving backwards?
What I mean by moving backwards is that despite huge advances in technology, the predictions for when this will become mainstream are further in the future now than they were five years ago. If you listened to people back then, we'd have them available by now. The obvious lies they told about capabilities have been toned down now too, thankfully.

That's not to say the technology isn't amazing, and if I was king of Canada I'd happily set down a decree banning incompetent humans from driving cars - they're objectively terrible at it. But the real world is much more complex, and the technology evidently is much harder to get from 90% to 100% than it was from 10% to 90%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:43 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.