BRD wrote: So what will the court's reaction be if nobody can understand it? >
No one understands the neural networks of humans in absolute terms, yet courts can deal with their actions. :) The questions that arise with self driving cars are akin to a captain putting a ship or plane on autopilot. Was this appropriate use of the system? Was the system properly maintained? Did the manufacturer follow best practice in design and construction? Was it adequately tested? This type of process applies everywhere. No one knows how most drugs work. Their use entails risks because biochemistry is seriously incomplete. A drug manufacturer is not culpable on a drug failure. They are culpable if they withheld information on adverse reactions or made false claims for efficacy. Tesla label their robot driving software as "beta". They say that their software has been shown to be significantly safer ikn is usage domain than the average driver and this label is to warn drivers that it is not perfectly reliable. The say they will remove the label when the software is ten times safer than the average driver. > A second question is: will the software be licenced or will the vendor own > it? > Not sure what the implication is. I would expect, as a practical matter of management and safety, that the software would need to be continuously updated. In this case, the vendor is either running a taxi service (which I think will end up the most common usage scenario) or selling a vehicle with the best current software. In the latter case the owner would be culpable if they stopped the update process - if this were possible - or messed with the software or sensors - again, if this were possible. These actions would presumably brick your car. The vendor would be culpable if he didn't collect usage information, produce updates when required, test updates, and ensure that all "nodes" receive critical updates. Jim _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
