Future of self-driving automobiles...

[iNow]

That's a question for the legislature

[dimreepr]

That is true but why would they get away with smaller payouts than for human drivers?

 

The good old standby to renege on a debt, an act of god.

Edited January 8, 2017 by dimreepr

[EdEarl]

That is true but why would they get away with smaller payouts than for human drivers?

A human driver faced with running over a child or crashing into a wall killing several occupants will not make the same decision each time. An AI driver is fast enough to make a consistent decision each time, for example kill the child to save the occupants. In this case, the insurance would pay for one death instead of the car and several deaths.

[Bender]

When car ownership fades, car insurance will shift to the renting company, so as an individual you no longer have to bother since you are in no way responsible for any accidents (unless you did something outside the user agreement, in which case you are screwed).

A human driver faced with running over a child or crashing into a wall killing several occupants will not make the same decision each time. An AI driver is fast enough to make a consistent decision each time, for example kill the child to save the occupants. In this case, the insurance would pay for one death instead of the car and several deaths.

Perhaps you can pay extra to be included in a face-recognition library, so the car will kill the cheapest group available

[John Cuthber]

Seems like a small inconvenience compared to the advantages. And for that fringe group, there is medication to alleviate their motion sickness.

You already made it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

It's not a "fringe" group.

It majorly debilitating and the pills have side effects, so, rather than pretending it's a non-problem, why not try to answer the question?

[swansont]

I imagine insurance companies will lobby to reduce their pay-out in the event of accidents by AI drivers. That means laws, cars, and AI drivers will be designed to reduce insurance pay-out.

I don't know to what extent they would have to lobby for it. It may very well end up that the accidents cost less. There's no driver to be injured, for one. There may be fewer accidents. Making the AI safer than human drivers will have the secondary effect of lowering insurance costs.

[Bender]

You already made it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

It's not a "fringe" group.

It majorly debilitating and the pills have side effects, so, rather than pretending it's a non-problem, why not try to answer the question?

I have. I don't know anyone who has this problem. I have never even heard of this problem. Therefore, I don't think it is a big deal compared to the huge advantages.

 

But please enlighten me if you do not agree.

[John Cuthber]

I have. I don't know anyone who has this problem. I have never even heard of this problem. Therefore, I don't think it is a big deal compared to the huge advantages.

 

But please enlighten me if you do not agree.

Well, I could name 5 people among my acquaintances who suffer from this; but don't let your personal ignorance get in the way of your determination to ignore the issue.

[iNow]

Well obviously need to invent inertial dampers to install in our self-driving cars.

[Bender]

Well, I could name 5 people among my acquaintances who suffer from this; but don't let your personal ignorance get in the way of your determination to ignore the issue.

Like I said: please enlighten me. How many people suffer from this, statistically? How debillitating is it? Can these people use other means of transportation, such as train, bus, boat or plane? How do they get around now if unable to drive themselves for whatever reason?

 

I'll accept that it is not a fringe condition and it is worth addressing at this point if you can show me the statistics. I might even look it up myself if you could at least give me a name for this condition.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Bender

[John Cuthber]

The phenomenon may not even have a name.
Why not start by asking the people you know if they get this problem?

Who knows- it might get named after you.

[iNow]

Isn't this request too onerous, though? After all, we never bothered caring about people getting motion sick when introducing taxis, or buses, or subways, or trains, or planes, etc... Why put this requirement specifically on self-driving cars when there's no precedent for doing so?

[CharonY]

Also, afaik it does not need another name as it is pretty much the same cause (i.e. mismatch of visual and vestibular input). The symptoms are lessned while seated at the front as you have more cues as to the expected movements, and even more so as the driver (as you initiate the movement). Similar to all other car rides there are factors that help (such as sleeping or focusing on a point in the distance) and things that make it worse (e.g. reading).

 

Consider that still a sizeable proportion of people are using cabs or otherwise ride as passengers, I would agree that this is unlikely to be a fundamental issue.

[swansont]

Isn't this request too onerous, though? After all, we never bothered caring about people getting motion sick when introducing taxis, or buses, or subways, or trains, or planes, etc... Why put this requirement specifically on self-driving cars when there's no precedent for doing so?

 

 

It might be an issue if we banned humans from driving, but until that point is reached, you can just drive yourself if that's what's required.

[iNow]

That's a very good point. If one's motion sickness is so debilitating, they can easily opt-out of using a self-driving vehicle and stick with what they have today.

[Bender]

The self-driving car might be better than riding along with another human driver, since the car can anticipate better and control the jerk, which makes the drive smoother.

 

More on the point of hitting pedestrians vs concrete walls: while an individual car owner has little incentive to pay for pedestrian safety such as external airbags, it might be easier to push such things through. The car can also start breaking perhaps half a second earlier, which makes a considereable difference in survivability. The car could also hit the concrete wall in the best way possible. Most importantly, though, is that the car will keep to the speed limit of 50 km/hour in residential area's (or lower in school area's). At those speeds, there is a very high chance of stepping away from a crash into a concrete wall without major injuries.

[StringJunky]

The self-driving car might be better than riding along with another human driver, since the car can anticipate better and control the jerk, which makes the drive smoother.

 

More on the point of hitting pedestrians vs concrete walls: while an individual car owner has little incentive to pay for pedestrian safety such as external airbags, it might be easier to push such things through. The car can also start breaking perhaps half a second earlier, which makes a considereable difference in survivability. The car could also hit the concrete wall in the best way possible. Most importantly, though, is that the car will keep to the speed limit of 50 km/hour in residential area's (or lower in school area's). At those speeds, there is a very high chance of stepping away from a crash into a concrete wall without major injuries.

Autonomous cars won't: ogle the woman across the street, use mobile phones, smoke, drink drive, drug drive, get road rage....potential accident stats looking better already just with those. Total road accident figures will plummet.

Edited January 9, 2017 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Autonomous cars won't: ogle the woman across the street, use mobile phones, smoke, drink drive, drug drive, get road rage....potential accident stats looking better already just with those. Total road accident figures will plummet.

What we don't know is how it will anticipate different situations. How good the recognition algorithms and sensors are (e.g. is that a car, an animal, or a leaf blowing in front of the sensor) We also don't know if different software from different car companies will conflict, causing problems. What if one company's response is to e.g. swerve in one direction, and another's is to swerve in whatever way makes collisions worse? There are so many decisions the computer will have to make.

[StringJunky]

What we don't know is how it will anticipate different situations. How good the recognition algorithms and sensors are (e.g. is that a car, an animal, or a leaf blowing in front of the sensor) We also don't know if different software from different car companies will conflict, causing problems. What if one company's response is to e.g. swerve in one direction, and another's is to swerve in whatever way makes collisions worse? There are so many decisions the computer will have to make.

As far as certain vehicle behaviours go, I would imagine there will be a consortium to standardise certain common emergency maneuvers so such conflicts can be avoided where possible. The difference between AI and humans is that they will continually read the road and can anticipate earlier; they are not distracted. In principle, I think they are better drivers. Don't forget, as more of these vehicles come on the road the more standardised and predictable the traffic will be. Say there's an accident in fog up the motorway, an AV could detect situations that humans can't and could also respond to a signal transmitted by other cars having problems; pile-ups could be rarer with them This is some distance in the future but plausible I think. The advent of AVs will create new problems but the net number of road accidents could drop by a large margin.

Edited January 10, 2017 by StringJunky

[swansont]

They can be better drivers, in theory. But whether they are, or end up as, remains to be seen.

[StringJunky]

They can be better drivers, in theory. But whether they are, or end up as, remains to be seen.

In the short term humans are better but as AI advances they will respond as we would because we designed them and they wouldn't have the spontaneous urge to do non-driving behaviours. The road into the future is a long one and they aren't going away. I think this particular technology will bring out the inner Luddite out in people for a fair while. AI reflects our own abilities and will only become more like us, and better, as time rolls on.

Edited January 10, 2017 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

In the short term, humans can drive in all environments and scenarios, and AI is limited, e.g., to highway without lane changes, but it is not distracted and doesn't fall asleep; thus, it has a few advantages over people. As time goes on, AI will learn to drive in more and more environments and scenarios and drive better in all cases.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Who is responsible for traffic accidents - car owner or car manufacturer?

[shenanine]

a car that can produce chicken nuggets

[Bender]

Who is responsible for traffic accidents - car owner or car manufacturer?

The insurance company.