It is obvious if you give any thought that laws do not constrain a car to the safest paths. For example, woud you expect a driver or an automobile *not *to cross a double yellow line to avoid something in the road or an incorrectly driven oncoming vehicle?
I don't see why rolling stops are a problem if executed by an attentive, well trained, controller, with fast reflexes. I also think traffic engineers are underzealous in their application of yield signs. Humans are particularly poor decision makers when behind the wheel. Or, there would be no accidents or fatalities. I will wait and see if an autonomous car can't be made to exceed the decision making ability of humans. Maybe not all of them, but enough to make travel on roads safer. To hell with what the law says when there are some out of the box situations. On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:30 PM EV List Lackey via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3 Feb 2022 at 7:27, John Lussmyer via EV wrote: > > > You didn't answer the question, you just re-iterated that they shouldn't > be > > allowed to be done by an advanced AI system with far better observation > > capabilities than a human. > > > > Why shouldn't an AI be allowed to do them? > > Completely aside from the question of whether AI will ever actually be > "intelligent": > > 1. I'm not an expert, but from what I've read, I don't agree that Tesla's > autopilot has "far better observation capabilities than a human." Maybe > it > could have, but Musk kneecapped it by ordering his engineers to use only > visual sensors (and I think ultrasound). Musk reportedly thinks that > humans > use only vision in driving, so that's enough for a car. Really? Besides, > maybe Musk uses only his vision, but most of us use all of our senses in > driving. At least 4 of them; 5 if you have a drink in the cupholder. :-) > > 2. Tesla is touting their new supercomputer for autopilot learning. How > much > do the cars depend on it for moment-to-moment decisions? I haven't read > all > the articles on it, but none so far has even asked that question. Mobile > phone data isn't a "mission-critical" service with guaranteed speed and > uptime. What happens when the car can't talk to the server for minutes, > hours, days, or weeks at a stretch? > > 3. As far as I know, Tesla is the only automaker encouraging their cars' > drivers to turn driving over to the car entirely. Officially, they say > "don't rely on it," but that's effectively negated by what Musk says > unofficially and by the names he gives the system. "It's full self > driving, > but don't let the car drive itself, OK?" Wink wink, nudge nudge. > > 4. I don't know of any other automaker expecting its customers to > beta-test > safety-critical self driving software - and with the chutzpah to make them > pay a $10k surcharge for the privilege. > > 5. Who, in a nation full of angry, over-entitled, self-centered jerks, > thought it was a good idea to add an "aggressive" mode to Teslas? > > 6. Finally, are people on this list seriously arguing that an automatic > system should be deliberately programmed to *actively* violate traffic > law? > Or even to give the driver that choice? > > ----- > > I don't know how many of y'all realize this, but outside of the EV > community, informed and intelligent people make grim jokes about Tesla's > autopilot failures. > > Between those failures and their legal responsibility failures, mark my > words, Tesla is heading for a legal and fiscal cliff. They'd better > really > watch their tails as they push into Europe. The regulatory climate there > is > a lot less laissez-faire, and the culture less every-man-for-himself, than > in the US. > > I know a lot of you don't agree, but I still think that Musk is past his > use- > by date at Tesla. The board should get him off Twitter, kick him upstairs > to a well-paid emeritus advisory role, and turn the CEO job over to > someone > with a little human conscience, prudence, and responsibility. > > David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey > > To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it. Use my > offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > Many [Americans] are superstitious ... 42% believe in ghosts, 65% > believe in karma ... and 22% contend that climate change is a hoax > and that no action need be taken to combat it, which means that > even more Americans may come to believe in karma in the future. > > -- Colette Brooks > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > _______________________________________________ > Address messages to [email protected] > No other addresses in TO and CC fields > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/ > LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > -- Michael E. Ross (919) 585-6737 Land (919) 901-2805 Cell and Text (919) 576-0824 <https://www.google.com/voice/b/0?pli=1#phones> Tablet, Google Phone and Text -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20220203/eba0d78e/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Address messages to [email protected] No other addresses in TO and CC fields UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/ LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
