The difference is Jim that ‘granny’ wasn’t issued with a manufactures warranty or covered by the Consumer law that says a product must be fit for purpose. The operator had no registered address for receiving a summons ...
Nicholas English [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent from … aPhone (tada!!) > On 8 May 2018, at 4:18 pm, Jim Birch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, but this is what I don't get: don't software bugs in humans drivers' > brains kill all the time? My cousin and his wife were recently hit by a > human-controlled vehicle*. They were crossing in a crossing at a > designated crossing legally with the "green man" and were hit by a turning > vehicle. The driver, a granny picking a kid from school and driving into > the sun, treated them as artifacts or was suffering sensor failure. All > software contains bugs. Software that is going to make judgement call on > an array of complex data is absolutely going to get it wrong at times, just > like people do. There's no absolute fix for this. The question for me is > not whether AI cars are perfect. There will be failures and we can > reasonably demand that a cause will be identifiable. My question is > this: Would my cousin and wife be better off if the granny was driving or > an AI system? > > Jim > > * Both survived, a broken bone and some soft tissue damage. Near full > recovery expected over time. > > > > On 8 May 2018 at 09:41, Roger Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Report: Software bug led to death in Uber's self-driving crash >> Sensors detected Elaine Herzberg, but software reportedly decided to >> ignore her. >> TIMOTHY B. LEE >> Ars Technica >> MAY 7, 2018 10:12 PM UTC >> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/report- >> software-bug-led-to-death-in-ubers-self-driving-crash/ >> >> The fatal crash that killed pedestrian Elaine Herzberg in Tempe, Arizona, >> in March occurred because of a software bug in Uber's self-driving car >> technology, The Information's Amir Efrati reported on Monday. According to >> two anonymous sources who talked to Efrati, Uber's sensors did, in fact, >> detect Herzberg as she crossed the street with her bicycle. Unfortunately, >> the software classified her as a "false positive" and decided it didn't >> need to stop for her. >> >> ... [nice article] ... >> >> >> [In the postmodern world, a new survival trait has emerged: >> >> [Don't exhibit patterns that stand out from the crowd and are hard for >> AI/ML to classify, because the patterns will either mark you for attention, >> e.g. by law enforcement and national security agencies, or will be treated >> as an artefact and ignored. Both kinds of positives are survival threats. >> >> [Elaine Herzberg's unclassifiability was presumably a walking human form >> merged with a bike-profile, and the treatment by the software melange was >> 'unclassifiable, hence treat as an artefact of the image collection >> system'; so she wasn't detected as a pedestrian in the vehicle carriageway. >> >> >> -- >> Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ >> >> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA >> Tel: +61 2 6288 6916 http://about.me/roger.clarke >> mailto:[email protected] http://www.xamax.com.au/ >> >> Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W. >> Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University >> _______________________________________________ >> Link mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link >> > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
