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] Gn: '... Google erases blog without warning'

On 15/07/2016 09:16, Karl Auer wrote: On Fri, 2016-07-15 at 08:18 +1000, Roger Clarke wrote: Dennis Cooper fears censorship as Google erases blog without warning Leaving aside all the other considerations, did this chap really have the only copies of all his work in the now-deleted blog? If

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] Gn: '... Google erases blog without warning'

On Fri, 2016-07-15 at 08:18 +1000, Roger Clarke wrote: > Dennis Cooper fears censorship as Google erases blog without warning Leaving aside all the other considerations, did this chap really have the only copies of all his work in the now-deleted blog? If so, then he's an idiot. Seriously, is

[LINK] Gn: '... Google erases blog without warning'

[A long, long time ago, I wrote about 'the new Dark Ages': http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/DarkAges.html [Here's a mini-case that doesn't involve China.] Dennis Cooper fears censorship as Google erases blog without warning The author and artist's 14-year-old blog, in the same vein as his

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

[LINK] Fake Pokemon App [was Re: A category of people who would benefit from self driving cars]

It hasn't taken long for hostiles to deploy a fake Pokemon app: https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet/stay-smart-online/alert-service/fake-pokemon-go-app-contains-malware-and-can-steal-your-information or http://tinyurl.com/haacwnb A malicious version of the popular Pokémon

[LINK] A category of people who would benefit from self driving cars

Had my first Pokemon go experience today with some guy standing in the middle of the road with his back to me staring at his phone. Totally oblivious, easily run over by someone less watchful. ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au

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