Braineack

iTrader: (62)

id take them and run.

sidenote: think i finally convinced the wife to get kitty #4.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Just pick one up and go home with it. No way she can say no once the cutie-pie is at home.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

all my cats must be fluffy from now on.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

When Should Your Driverless Car From Google Be Allowed To Kill You?


Owen Barder points out a quite delightful problem that we’re all going to have to come up with some collective answer to over the driverless cars coming from Google and others. Just when is it going to be acceptable that the car kills you, the driver, or someone else? This is a difficult public policy question and I’m really not sure who the right people to be trying to solve it are. We could, I guess, given that it is a public policy question, turn it over to the political process. It is, after all, there to decide on such questions for us. But given the power of the tort bar over that process I’m not sure that we’d actually like the answer we got. For it would most likely mean that we never do get driverless cars, at least not in the US.

The basic background here is that driverless cars are likely to be hugely safer than the current human directed versions. For most accidents come about as a result of driver error. So, we expect the number of accidents to fall considerably as the technology rolls out. This is great, we want this to happen. However, we’re not going to end up with a world of no car accidents. Which leaves us with the problem of how do we program the cars to work when there is unavoidably going to be an accident?

This links into the Trolley Problem as Barder points out:

There are many variants on the Trolley Problem (analysed by Judith Jarvis Thompson), most of which will have to be reflected in the cars’ algorithms one way or another. For example, suppose a car finds on rounding a corner that it must either drive into an obstacle, leading to the certain death of its single passenger (the car owner), or it must swerve, leading to the death of an unknown pedestrian. Many human drivers would instinctively plough into the pedestrian to save themselves. Should the car mimic the driver and put the interests of its owner first? Or should it always protect the interests of the stranger? Or should it decide who dies at random? (Would you a buy a car programmed to put the interests of strangers ahead of the passenger, other things being equal?)

Who gets to decide this and how is that decision going to be reached?

This also links into something that many of us have been saying for some time now. It’s seems clear and obvious that the technology is going to get sorted pretty soon. And we definitely want the technology to be deployed as it will reduce a great part of that human suffering caused by the current level of accidents (in the UK for example your lifetime risk of being killed in a car accident is something like one in one hundred). It’s going to be the legal structure surrounding them that’s going to be the difficult nut to crack. Most especially the legal liability for accidents as and when that reduced number of accidents, injuries and deaths, do happen.

Currently legal liability is with the driver. It’s clear and obvious who gets sued therefore. But if it’s not the driver that makes the decisions, as it won’t be in a driverless car, then who is legally liable? You can imagine a trial lawyer arguing it either way. If, in the hypothetical above of coming around the corner and having to kill either the driver or the pedestrian, the program controlling the car says the driver then obviously the family of the deceased will (OK, someone in that situation definitely will) start suing whoever programmed the car. Similarly the family of the innocent pedestrian if the coding decision is made the other way. And they might well win too: there’s a clear chain of responsibility from the coding decision having been made to the end result.

And the damages that would come from managing to nail Google in a wrongful death suit would be fairly large I think. So large, and while the number of accidents would be very much smaller than the current level there would still be many of them, that I’m not sure that any corporation would really be willing to take on that financial risk.

So we actually end up with two problems here. The first being the one that Barder has outlined, which is that there’s an ethical question to be answered over how the programming decisions are made. Seriously, under what circumstances should a driverless car, made by Google or anyone else, be allowed to kill you or anyone else? The basic Trolly Problem is easy enough, kill fewer people by preference. But when one is necessary which one? And then a second problem which is that the people who have done the coding are going to have to take legal liability for that decision they’ve made. And given the ferocity of the plaintiff’s bar at times I’m not sure that anyone will really be willing to make that decision and thus adopt that potential liability.

Clearly, this needs to be sorted out at the political level. Laws need to be made clarifying the situation. And hands up everyone who thinks that the current political gridlock is going to manage that in a timely manner?

Quite.

And the worst outcome would be that said liability isn’t sorted out so that we never do get the mass manufacturing and adoption of driverless cars. For however they’re programmed in the above hypotheticals the overall accident rate is going to be much lower than the current one.


When Should Your Driverless Car From Google Be Allowed To Kill You? - Forbes

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I don't know how advanced the censors are or how fast and accurate scenarios could be calculated and weighed against each other but I feel as though minimizing overall risk should be the priority. If two scenarios happen where calculated damages are equal then it should defer to right of way (i.e. don't swerve onto the sidewalk and kill the pedestrian because they have the right of way on the sidewalk)

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

How have I managed to lose both of my soldering irons!?

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Poor organizational skills or high crime area.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The radio shack near me closed. I can't buy my tips anymore.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

They are just now releasing dev kit 3 (crescent bay), or haven't you heard?

Consumer version is supposedly similar and expected in 2015.

Unknown. I know if it does, it'll be 1080p per eye and microdisplay based, probably similar to the HMZ-T1.

Incidentally, I realized in retrospect that I may have worn one of the first Oculus Rift prototypes before it went mainstream--pre DK1. It was made partly from a Smith ski mask and still had the Smith logo and part of the lens frame. It was shown by Brendan Iribe and some other dude. Brendan came to chat with us at our booth at one point. Didn't know who he was at the time. Just looked like some guy at a tradeshow. That was Fall 2012.

TurboTim

iTrader: (9)

So I know someone from a forum who once spoke to a person in person who is now Forrest Gump rich? Niace!

This almost trumps the time my HS marching band played at a bob dole fundraiser.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

Well, my manager told me that they will be offering my a FT position by month's end. I'm on the fence in that I'm not terribly excited about what I do there at the moment, but they like to move people around. The other thing being the schedule- it's a front-half/back-half place on 12-hour shifts. I'm currently on back-half day, and work every Saturday. It also gets in the way with my school schedule. But as a FTE, I wonder if they'll be a little more flexible with the schedule when I am in school.

Pay goes up a significant amount though...and the opportunity to work a fair bit of overtime. Oh, the opportunity to have medical insurance again so I can go back on my meds.

Will be finishing up my fall semister this week...which will take some stress away as well.

good2go

iTrader: (2)

Sounds promising: take the money, take the medical insurance, take your meds, feel better, profit.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

I'm thinking if they can match the money I have in mind, I'll do it. He mentioned one figure, which was one I thought about mentally "if they could pay me xx/hr I could reduce my stress", and said I'm more than welcome to counter offer. I want $1/hr more than the number he mentioned. Also, the chances of getting moved around/learning a possibly more engaging tool are greatly increased as a FTE.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

$1/hour more?

Counter with 10% more and a good reason why (since they gave you the opening). Done right, you'll get out with way more than $1/hour more. Unless of course you're looking for $10/hour.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

Actually, the initial figure was $4/hr more, I want $5/hr more to cover medical. We'll see what happens when the offer is officially handed to me. I've actually been working hard just to show how good of an employee I can be...even with how mentally bored I am with the work...and good work ethic transfers anywhere.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

hourly...do you work at mcdonalds?

z31maniac

OT > Salary

I'm hourly since I don't have any direct reports, which is fine with me.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I'll take 6:45 - 3:30 no if ands or buts 'errday.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

I've never had a salary job, and i like it that way.

Because if i'm going to be working 60hr+ weeks, **** a bunch of salary.

Sincerely,

Someone who makes 150-175% of his base "salary" every year.


If it weren't for overtime, i wouldn't have a Miata.

Inb4 "Get a better job."

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

Actually, I work in semi-conductor manufacturing.