Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 22/07/2016 11:35 AM, David Lochrin wrote: ... The motivation for driverless cars doesn't come from parents dropping the children off at school or going down to the shops in outer suburbs. It comes from automating traffic on the major arteries and congested inner-city streets, the very

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 2016-07-22 10:34 Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote: > If you live on the Northern Beaches of Sydney (Tony Abbott's and Bronwyn > Bishop's (old) electorates) there are no trams, no trains and two bridges > (Spit and Roseville) into the city. > > They are building a big new hospital a few km's

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

BRD wrote: And the idea that robots and/or autonomous vehicles can predict > consequences > Doesn't a robot - or a human driver - in effect make a prediction when they apply the brakes? I say "in effect" because the world does not actually run on "predictions". In Kahneman terms of slow and

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 22/07/2016 10:16 AM, David Lochrin wrote: > On 2016-07-21 23:54 Stephen Loosley wrote: > >> Seems to me that future vehicle “black boxes” will be networked clouds. >> >> Properly done, each vehicle will have it’s own IP address, and be connected >> with and communicate with surrounding

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 21/07/2016 5:36 PM, David Lochrin wrote: > On 2016-07-21 17:13 Bernard Robertson wrote: > >> BTW, Asimov's laws of robotics have been well and truly debunked. They fail >> when you instruct several robots to perform certain actions which, to >> individual robots, are innocuous, but when taken

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 21/07/2016 16:59, Jim Birch wrote: BRD wrote: Do you suppose Tesla will be required to make their source code available for scrutiny if things get to court? Do you suppose that anyone could understand it? A multilayer neural network is essentially a black box. Tinker With a Neural

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 07/21/2016 05:20 PM, andrew clarke wrote: On Thu 2016-07-21 16:59:02 UTC+1000, Jim Birch (planet...@gmail.com) wrote: Do you suppose Tesla will be required to make their source code available for scrutiny if things get to court? Do you suppose that anyone could understand it? A

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 2016-07-21 17:13 Bernard Robertson wrote: > BTW, Asimov's laws of robotics have been well and truly debunked. They fail > when you instruct several robots to perform certain actions which, to > individual robots, are innocuous, but when taken in combination, are lethal And Asimov's "laws of

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

At 17:13 +1000 21/7/16, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote: >BTW, Asimov's laws of robotics have been well and truly debunked. ... I was kinder than to say 'debunked' (:-)} And Asimov's own fiction extended the set from the nominal 3 to 5+2: http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/Asimov.html#LawsExt >They

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On Thu 2016-07-21 16:59:02 UTC+1000, Jim Birch (planet...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Do you suppose Tesla will be required to make their source code > > available for scrutiny if things get to court? > > > Do you suppose that anyone could understand it? A multilayer neural > network is essentially

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

>BRD wrote: >> Do you suppose Tesla will be required to make their source code >> available for scrutiny if things get to court? At 16:59 +1000 21/7/16, Jim Birch wrote: >Do you suppose that anyone could understand it? A multilayer neural >network is essentially a black box. Presumably Tesla's

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 21/07/2016 4:59 PM, Jim Birch wrote: > BRD wrote: > > >> Do you suppose Tesla will be required to make their source code >> available for scrutiny if things get to court? > > Do you suppose that anyone could understand it? So what will the court's reaction be if nobody can understand it? A

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

BRD wrote: > Do you suppose Tesla will be required to make their source code > available for scrutiny if things get to court? Do you suppose that anyone could understand it? A multilayer neural network is essentially a black box. Presumably Tesla's cars have a bunch of virtual neural

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 21/07/2016 3:36 PM, David Boxall wrote: > Seems it's all part of Elon Musk's Tesla Masterplan for World > Domination. ;) > > >> “This is not beta software in any normal sense of the word… It is >>

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

Seems it's all part of Elon Musk's Tesla Masterplan for World Domination. ;) “This is not beta software in any normal sense of the word… It is called beta in order to decrease complacency and indicate

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

Hi Mike, If we posit a situation where driverless technology has become so reliable that accidents are almost unknown, then I agree the ethical & legal issues would disappear. In this scenario cars would no longer be fitted with manual controls and would be able to go anywhere, say for

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 13/07/16 15:55, David Boxall wrote: ... self-driving vehicles ... whether they're an improvement ... This week I took part in a Start-up Product Development Workshop run by the Kiln Incubator at ANU. My team was given the task of digitizing the driver's license process at the Canberra

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

At 01:50 PM 14/07/2016, Brendan wrote: >Presumably, driverless cars are going to disproportionately remove drunks, >suicides and young men from the accident statistics. If there is only a >marginal improvement in _overall_ statistics, then that implies that they're >being balanced by losses

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 14 July 2016 at 18:13, David Lochrin wrote: > > > The core question is to what extent people are to be held responsible for > their actions. Is a driverless car which kills someone the responsibility > of the owner, the maunfacturer, the agency which approved it, or

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 2016-07-14 14:06 Karl Auer wrote: > The trolley problem as I understand it has a person at a switch. A runaway > train (trolley) is coming down the track. The switch is set so that if > nothing is done, the trolley will kill five people standing on the track. If > the switch position is

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 14 July 2016 at 16:22, Karl Auer & Brendan wrote: Talk of the trolley problem seems kind of irrelevant to what is likely to happen in the real world. How do autopilot systems in a jetliner handle such a quandary? They do not, in any meaningful sense. Robot vehicles will likely drive slower in

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 15:01 +1000, Brendan wrote: > On 07/14/2016 02:06 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > > The fallacy in the argument as it applies to autonomous vehicles is > The argument has nothing whatsoever to do with autonomous vehicles > making decisions. OK. It turns out you were applying "the

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 07/14/2016 02:06 PM, Karl Auer wrote: On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 13:50 +1000, Brendan wrote: Yes. It's effectively the trolley problem. Do you throw a fat person in the way of a runaway trolley in order to save 5 other people? [] The fallacy in the argument as it applies to autonomous

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 14 July 2016 at 13:50, Brendan wrote: > > Presumably, driverless cars are going to disproportionately remove drunks, > suicides and young men from the accident statistics. That's true, but those drivers often hit other random people too. And people who aren't

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 13:50 +1000, Brendan wrote: > Yes. It's effectively the trolley problem. Do you throw a fat person > in the way of a runaway trolley in order to save 5 other people? What the hell has fatness got to do with it? The trolley problem as I understand it has a person at a

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 2016-07-13 18:42 Brendan wrote: > The failure modes for a driverless vehicle are probably different from those > of a driven vehicle. > > It's not clear to me that overall lower injuries/fatalities overrides the > manner in which they're suffered/ who they're suffered by. Yes, accident

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

Brendan wrote: It's not clear to me that overall lower injuries/fatalities overrides the > manner in which they're suffered/ who they're suffered by. This sounds a little spooky to me. Are you saying you don't mind being injured or killed provided there is a good redeeming narrative available?

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 13/07/2016 6:42 PM, Brendan wrote: ... It may be more nuanced than that. ... More analysis, including comparisons of different implementations: -- David Boxall | ignorance more frequently

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 07/13/2016 03:55 PM, David Boxall wrote: For me, the question is not whether self-driving vehicles are perfect (every system has a failure rate), it's whether they're an improvement. It may be more nuanced than that. The failure modes for a driverless vehicle are probably different from

Re: [LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

On 2016-07-13 15:55 David Boxall wrote: > For me, the question is not whether self-driving vehicles are perfect (every > system has a failure rate), it's whether they're an improvement. > > http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/robot-cars-fear-gap-50008 > There’s a historical precedent to this. An

[LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

For me, the question is not whether self-driving vehicles are perfect (every system has a failure rate), it's whether they're an improvement. There’s a historical precedent to this. An article from a 1984 edition of the New York Times