Autonomous Vehicles: Innovation, Ethics, and Responsibility

What is the proper algorithm for dealing with any situation a driver might encounter?

The self-proclaimed "geniuses" in Silicon Valley can't even get computers to run 100% reliably 100% of the time but they expect us to believe that they can do it with the 253 million cars and trucks on US roads, with variables like no desktop computer has ever had to face?

Not in my lifetime or anybody else's on this board.

Tesla sued over 'dangerously defective' Autopilot software

I award you a GA, and I would like to apply 2^{^10} gold stars for an answer that well played.

The goal doesn't need to be '100% reliability 100% of the time'. That is an inappropriate goal that would delay improvement/innovation giving a permanence to todays shortcomings.

.

An appropriate goal might be 'more reliable than people more of the time, and when not running reliably shuts down yo a safe condition with a minimal of risk of bodily harm or property damage.

The implementation needs only to be an unambiguous significant meaningful improvement overall as compared to the current system.

Reductions in fatalities and serious injury per occupant mile over manual driving is probably already occurring, or should be once enough data comes in.

Improvements in fuel economy per vehicle and per occupant mile should be achievable.

Reduction in congestion, parking scarcity, and commute times (due to not having occupants involved in finding and walking from parking) should also be quickly forthcoming.

.

Please consider the moronic severity of some current drivers, before deciding AI will never be smart enough to be better than the current norm.

The part I object to is someone like (that might not like me), hacking into the thing and killing me with it. I have enough problems on my own without a "hit man" getting involved.

No autonomous system, no chance of being hacked. That still would not rule you out from slipping one under my seat.

Physical systems can be hacked and with far less sophistication.

Yes, there are any number of Perry Mason episodes dating back to the late 1940's and early 1950's that dealt with murder by cutting the brake lines, tampering with the shift lever, etc. Then there is always the angry wife with a case of "it", tossing the AC powered radio in the bathtub with husband present in the water (OR vice versa).

Paranoia is no remedy when people really are out to get "one".

Eternal Vigilance is the price of continued Liberty and Peace. Violence is tempting to those in our society that face perceived injustice, deprivation of Liberty, or when threatened indirectly. Violence usually begets more violence. One never knows how one act of violence could unravel stability in so many lives. Airline travel seems to be ramping toward some strange ebullient frothing up of hostility at the present.

'...Paranoia is no remedy when people really are out to get "one"....'

.

Seems like it might not be so simple to be paranoid about real plots ( those not overly or wholly imagined) to do one harm.

"The goal doesn't need to be '100% reliability 100% of the time'."

What you're advocating there is putting drivers who've been careful enough for their entire lives while driving on the melee that is the public roads without having any type of accident, to suddenly be put in the cross hairs of, for example, a 26 wheel cement truck, programmed by a Silicon Valley know-it-all, fresh out of college, whose program can't differentiate between a green car against a forest or meadow, or a broadsided tractor trailer against a blue sky.

And please don't tell me it can't happen, it already has, ie, the Tesla incident.

What's particularly galling about Tesla's response was their contention that "neither the car's sensors nor the driver spotted it crossing the road."

On the one hand they breezily spout their incompetence as if it's a given that we need to accept or they'll find a way to put non-believers under a broad sided tractor trailer, and on the other they try to blame the driver saying he didn't see the truck either.

But they have no way of knowing he didn't see the truck - he could have just as easily been expecting the "Autopilot" (Autopilot - a laughable term in that context) to do what it claimed to be capable of doing - right up to the moment of impact.

Tesla has said that the reason for the Autopilot failing to spot the trailer was that it was white and, on a bright sunny day, neither the car's sensors nor the driver spotted it crossing the road.

Such a vile and disgusting arrogance combined with rank incompetence is never going to convince me that "The goal doesn't need to be '100% reliability 100% of the time'."

Did America put men on the moon with that attitude?

I don't think so.

I just saw a webinar yesterday about the next gen cameras called CAOS camera, where there is time-domain information in an image as well as wavelength domain information due to a cooperative controlled access optical system reminiscent of cellular telephone encoding. They were able to get up to 180 dB contrast between various pixel areas in an image by using such techniques.

The Tesla vs. truck incident was used as an example of one potential place where CAOS camera may save lives in the future. The contrast (ability to distinguish) being far higher than human vision can sense.

I still would not trust my life to autonomous vehicle. I would rather use the CAOS to find some very low level signal of IR light emitted in a really dark place.

I in no way wish to impede the progress of autonomous driver vehicles. I have seen some of the graduates of driver's ed. I have also noted that some drivers came here straight from Mexico (or further south), and may not have had the advantage of any particular training. Some may not have a driver's license, others suspended DL.

I have seen plenty of idiots taking their 3000 lb missile to speeds that are totally insane in the afternoon rush hour, weaving in between cars and trucks like this is some NASCAR event. I am just waiting for one to play "tag" with a gravel hauler or large dump truck, and watch them cartwheel several 360's before they roll, or have secondary collisions.

Insanity is not the fault of highway system. It has to do with immature people behind the wheel, that either do not know, or do not care about the rules of the road.

It is sort of like allowing a small group of fascist thugs (leftists) threaten violence if a certain speaker is allowed to express the open opinion in a public forum (i.e. Berkeley).

I'm not against the concept in principle.

I just know from my daily experiences with my own desktop computer that the execution of the concept won't come anywhere near to meeting the objectives.

On a desktop you just have the annoyance of having to do restarts several times a day but there's no restart after you've been anonymously guided under a tractor trailer by a silicon valley teenager, and your previously perfect driving record won't count for anything as your head's being removed from your body by one his software "bugs".

And your deaths will be nonchalantly explained away by an anonymous PR zombie who's shoved in front of the press by the cowards hiding in the back room .... "OK folks, this one was caused by the rain being too slippery and our sensors weren't able to detect that but we're working on a patch as we speak. Next?"

I think your fears are misplaced.

There is much more to fear on the road from the drunk (or simply showing-off) actually-there-in-person teenager driving his dad's Charger, than there is from a bit of code some silicon Valley genius helped to develop.

Don't worry, in this litigious country, every single AI involved accident will be scrutinized to the nth degree. The sheer liability will keep AI from being widely implemented until it can be unambiguously demonstrated it is significantly better than most drivers.

Yes there will be problems along the way. But those problems, as tragic as they will be, will be small in number compared to the everyday carnage that human imperfection reliably brings..and it is exactly that problem it will eventually correct. So give it some room.

I trust my instincts to keep out the way of drunks and tearaways more than I'd ever trust a silicon valley "genius" with my life.

You're welcome to give it some room, but I won't be joining you.

Do you plan to stay off the roads, or do you have more active protest in mind?

Instincts are fine, but also listen to logic.

Somewhere over 100,000 teslas are on the road in the US. Total US car fleet is around 275 million. So, teslas make up around .036% of the US car fleet. I don't have the data on miles driven, which is important, but I suspect Tesla being new cars drive more miles than the average fleet (new cars are not usually purchased to be stored in the garage and not driven).

Around 110 people die every day in auto accidents in the US. For 0.036% of those to be from Tesla, we would be hearing about a Tesla death every month.

You base your argument on such a miniscule portion of the US vehicle fleet and project that out to prove it's a fait accompli?

Show it to the family of Joshua Brown, the driver that relied on Tesla's "Autopilot" to see broadsided tractor trailers in clear visibilty and calm weather.

100000 vehicles is miniscule? Ridiculous.

Please show your argument to resist making automobile travel safer to the families of the 35,000 that have died on in auto accidents in the US since the day he died.

You said, "teslas make up around .036% of the US car fleet."

And you're projecting a fait accompli from that miniscule proportion?

You don't even listen to yourself so why would I expect you to listen to anyone else's point of view?

Truth is not a compromise.

I let it slide the fist time....but since you are insistent, it needs to be brought up. 'Fait accompli' doesn't work in you usage. It means something already decided which those who are to find out can do nothing about. How one might project that, and what power you feel I might have to make decisions others cannot affect is not clear.

Look, when you are talking about a few hundred million automobiles, .036% (100,000 cars) is not 'miniscule', insignificant, nor unimportant. Consider that you are so focused on one death out of roughly 40,000 that have happened in the last year.... so 0.0025% has you flipping out. What kinds of conclusions have you drawn from your (far more miniscule) sample?

.

The point wasn't to conduct a scientific study. I was just making a back of the envelope calculation with some very accommodating assumptions (erring on the side of making AI appear more dangerous than it is) and noting the dearth of deaths that should be happening if this wasn't more safe than typical drivers.

.

Go ahead, defend Drunk drivers and showoffs. Disparage AI. But realize who is actually killing most of the people.

Either you're so keen for your socialistic tendencies to prevail or you're being deliberately obtuse but either way it doesn't wash with me.

I couldn't care less about "the greater good", or your socialistic tendencies.

What I do care about is myself and my life.

What you're so intent on achieving, is taking my protection out of my own hands and putting it in the hands of some silicon valley halfwit so drunk on their own invincibilty that they're willing to sacrifice my life for the "greater good" of taking control out of my hands and putting it in their hands with their instictively irresponsible couldn't give a f**k attitude.

Can't you tell by the statements that came out of Tesla at the time of the incident that this death by remote control was meaningless to them because they simply don't give a rat's ass what you or me have to endure in order for them to take control out of our hands and put it in their hands - and you'd better suck it up or get crushed in the rush to adopt it?

It's plain that you've been an easy convert to their socialistic bullshine, because obviously you're willing to put your own life in the hands of birdbrained teenagers high on red bull in the name of socialism but it's obvious from your writings that that's because you're part of the great socialist swindle too.

And btw, fait accompli means already achieved, not "already decided" as you tried to present it in another one of your twists of the truth - but you already knew that - it was just another one of your attempts to distort the facts in your quest for socialistic supremacy.

I actually read your stuff (for once), and I am shocked to find I agree with >90% of your statements. I must really be having a "vigilante" moment.

TNC is basically harmless, if a snake. Remember it is cold outside, so leave the snake out there in the cold, and do not invite him in. If you do, he might warm up and bite you.

Here on this forum, so far, we do have alternative opinion, and that is what makes it great! You have yours, I have mine, some overlap, and TNC has his. No one is forcing anything on anyone here, and no one is shutting down (in the manner of fascism) the other side for uttering a difference of opinion. Opinions are like the out port, everyone has one. Some are stinkier than others. It is not a contest.

I could see autonomous vehicles in a nature park, but what if it stops in the middle of the dinosaur exhibit? Not a great idea. Of course a golf cart could do the same job, and also quit in the middle of a dangerous section (near the driving range?).

They already use autonomous vehicles in warehouses, and that is a safety first environment, how come not on "my" highway?

'A snake'! I am shocked. It is nice to see you care enough to notice.

Well, I suppose a 'thank you' is in order. Thank you. I appreciate the analogy. My rebuttals strike with deadly effect to poorly founded assertions.

.

One good compliment deserves another. You, Sir, are a cloaca hagfish Ascaris lumbricoides

(1) I do not reside in human fecal matter nor make my dwelling in human intestines.

(2) I think you still cannot get a handle on me, because you fail to understand me or what I am about.

(3) I was not thinking of your strike ability, so much as your ability to slither through and totally wreck a thread (just kidding).

(4) your suggested nom de Plume for me did make me sit up and take notice, and take immediate action to propose that your suggestion is little more than a projection of what you see in the mirror.

Now can we be friends?

I was really just teasing, and I thought it was obvious....certainly not something that would call friendship into question.

I happen to like snakes, so although I know it is usually a derisive name to call someone, I am not accepting any of that bitterness....only the good stuff.

Apparently I didn't do a good job finding your mascot. I will try again. Okapi.

Yes I Okapi.

Just don't call me Bush-meat!

I think that is a lovely (rare) animal. Reminds me of of early Mega-fauna.

I was supposedly disposed in a humorous vein, just not an intestine.

Cheers!

A punk rocker gets on the bus with green, yellow, purple and orange hair. An old guy sitting on the bus stares at him, and the punk says, "What's the matter, old man, didn't you ever do anything wild in your life?"

And the old man says, "Yeah, one time when I was in the navy, on shore leave, I once %$@# a partridge. I thought maybe you were my kid."

I like your answer and voted to counter whoever couldn't understand it is on topic.

I mean %$@# a partridge leading to being the father of a multicolor punk...ddefinitely rich grounds for exploring Innovation, Ethics and Responsibility.

lately,... I'm going to have to tone it down a bit..

...and a bus was in the story, that is autonomous, if you consider someone else is driving.

No one is trying to take control out of your hands....though the more you divulge your ideas and attempts at reason, the thought is certainly becoming more attractive.

Perhaps this is why you are reacting this way. Has someone already assessed you abilities and attempted to convince you it would be better for all concerned if you weren't in charge of decisions of real consequence?

You analysis is profoundly misguided. You assumptions have lead you to the exact polar opposite of the truth. My political philosophy is strongly aligned with libertarianism, not socialism. I don't however thing 'socialist' any more than `liberal' is any meaningful form of a slur. The terms 'Republican' and 'Democrat' are worse terms in my opinion.

But go ahead and (mis)label away, if it makes you feel better, or makes the world seem easier to understand.

Go ahead and (mis)value the one Tesla related death as somehow more important than the 40,000 that have occurred in the past year in the US.

Go ahead and (mis)understand what I am saying and rage against some idiotic notion you fantasize I said.

In the end, it won't matter. You won't even know if the cement truck driver that obliterates your car with you inside was a misprogramed AI or (far more likely) a real person who had a few too many or drove a few hours too long.....so you might as well enjoy your fantasy of self righteous indignation at the dastardly silicon Valley genius who really doesn't deserve to be leading a better life than you.

You said: "No one is trying to take control out of your hands"

Obviously you haven't been paying attention.

Autonomous vehicles are guided by software written by anonymous geeks - the occupants of said vehicles have no say in where they go or what they do.

Your opinion as to what would be best for your own safety is not in your own hands when you get into an autonomous vehicle.

Has that not sunk in yet?

This is basic stuff, yet you're still in denial.

Socialism sacrifices individuals for the greater good of the masses.

That's the credo you're advocating.

Go back and look at your posts - you advocated this because you insist it's for the greater good.

You're welcome to go there with all the enthusiasm you can muster to justify being a lemming if you want - I'm not interested in the greater good, only in my own good and my own judgement to preserve that.

Apparently there is no reason to think you will understand anything I write as anything other than what you have already decided it is. You are as unassailably convinced that your interpretation is correct, yet you have distorted much and wholly introduced new aspects. Sad.

I've only quoted things back to you that you'd said in previous posts.

You hanged yourself with your own "logic", it wasn't me who originally said those things I quoted back to you, it was you.

You haven't quoted anything other than my attempt to get you to understand I am not trying to get your driving privileges taken away.

There is nothing contradictory nor inherently socialist in that statement. Look, justread what is actually written. Ignore the cacophony of ignorant narrators in your head, no matter how emphatically they tell you their aim is to help,

"No one is trying to take control out of your hands"

"I am not trying to get your driving privileges taken away."

Did you write those two quotes, yes or no?

A simple one word response will do.

Your usual tendency to drift away from answering direct questions will no longer suffice as I'm obviously getting nowhere by giving you an unwarranted benevolence by letting you slide away from justifying your own quotes, hence my need to go back and drag up points that you completely avoided responding to the first time.

Once we've both agreed on the the fact that you wrote those, then I will ask you what the hell this whole thread has been about if it hasn't been about the desire on the part of the sociialist masters to take control away from us, (including you), but since you are obviously an early adopter of such socialistic swindles I can only assume you might be a plant put here to spread their message, either that or you're supremely naive as to their use of yourself as a trojan horse.

Anyway, I'm going to asume that once again you will have no answer that will cut any ice with me, so it's just left for me to say it's been fun listening to your "logic" and have a nice life in your autonomous box.

Btw, you do realize they will pass legislation that allows them to have all the windows in autonomous vehicles removed and replaced by pretty pictures of rolling countryside adorned by sweeping meadows full of wild flowers, just so you won't see that 26 wheel cement truck in your last moments before it turns you into strawberry jelly.

It's sweet of them to bother themselves with considering your final fantasies like that, isn't it?

"Little things seem nothing, but they give peace, like those meadow flowers which individually seem odorless but all together perfume the air." -- Georges Bernanos

You can see what I wrote above. That is not in question.

.

I am not your master. I take no responsibility for you and offer no direction.

As I have already informed you, your assumptions about my political leanings are completely off base.

I suspect the question of windows or monitors in cars will be driven by consumer demand and not so top down as you dream.

I do have to say your fantasies are colorful and detailed even if unlikely to ever come near to reality. I guess the time you spend spinning up these conspiracy theories isn't completely wasted, as long as entertainment value counts for something. So, please, continue.

I'm guessing you probably want to have the last word, and I'm OK with that, but before I disappear from this thread I'd like to leave you with an analogy that exactly illustrates the importance of the moment that we're facing and the consequences that will inevitably result from making mistakes at this early stage by not taking the Tesla incident seriously enough as an indicator of what goes wrong when standards are lowered in the name of "progress", which lowering of standards is, I believe, your own take on how to proceed on the issue - here's the quote from your earlier post "The goal doesn't need to be '100% reliability 100% of the time'."

I'm guessing you're probably familiar with these 2 recent aviation events:

1 - The downing of Air France flight 447 in the Atlantic

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

2 - The downing of US Airways Flight 1549 - better known as the Miracle in the Hudson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

The difference in the management of these 2 incidents provides the stark contrast between handing control over to computers and maintaining experienced and skilled human control of delicately balanced machinery.

In the Air France incident the captain oversaw the takeoff and cilmb to cruising altitude and the switch to autopilot and he then handed the flight deck over to two co-piolts and went for a nap himself.

That point about him going for a nap is in no way derogatory or intended to attach any blame for what was to come to the captain, he was merely doing what I assume was normal in the circumstances.

The problem was that the computer that was controlling the aircraft started to give misleading signals to the two co-pilots and after some period of indecision they unhooked the plane from the autopilot and attempted to fly it themselves.

That's when their problems started.

The 2 co-pilots had very little or zero skills in actually flying planes without the assistance of a computer.

The two copilots were both brought up and trained on planes that fly by computer so when they were called on to fly a plane with their own skills they simply didn't have any experience of flying without the assistance of a computer and consequently they made a series of errors that ultimately caused the plane to go down in the sea with the loss of 228 lives.

In sharp and direct contrast, as I am sure you're aware, Captain Sully Sullenberger piloted his stricken aircraft to a safe landing in water, from which every single occupant was rescued alive.

The difference, in case you haven't picked up on it yet, is that Sully is an old school pilot obsessed with safety, in fact he's devoted his entire career to advancing his knowledge and honing his skills in the matter of safe aircraft handling by his own hand, ie, by not relying on computers and by taking decisions that affect the lives of every one of his passengers on every flight of his long and distinguished career.

I'm in no way blaming the Air France pilots for being totally devoid of those skills.

It was established by the subsequent investigation into the Air France incident that the fault lies with the combined triple effects of:

1 - Pilots are no longer taught how to fly, they're taught to rely on computers.

2 - Aircraft manufacturers have been on a mission to eliminate human input and rely totally on computers, much like Tesla et al are attempting to do to vehicles.

3 - When they were called on to take control of the plane, the pilots misinterpreted every single indicator and consequently made all the wrong decisions, which ultimately resulted in the tragic loss of everyone on board - simply because of their inexperience at actually flying a plane instead of relying on computers to fly the plane.

Those two incidents and their subsequent outcomes exactly illustrate the point I have been trying to get across to you.

When you put your life in the hands of the Teslas et al you are giving up control of the thing you should value most - your life.

They don't give a fuc who lives or dies because of their zealous impositions.

I realize you think I'm taking an extreme line on the Tesla incident, and I admit I am, I definitely am, but that's because it's the canary in the coal mine, warning us of what's ahead if we buy into Tesla et al and their desperation to take control of our lives at the minimum of monetary cost to themselves.

Fly by wire works perfectly, every time, every time, every time...

...at least until someone clips the blue wire. Heaven forbid they clip the red wire.

Motorsports I predict will never be robotic, since (1) against the rules, and (2) what would be the challenge and fun in it. More people would have to (by law) participate in motorsports, so that when the robot control fails, they can actually drive, fly, glide, whatever to safety. The alternative is to have a no fail (fail safe) subroutine that simply deploys a "dead man" parachute to save the life of the passenger.

Despite increasing air traffic, it would appear Luddite fantasies are as unsupportable as ever. Technology does make air travel safer....other travel as well.

Oh oh.

Looks like we don't need autonomous vehicles to reduce deaths on the road after all.

You've bought into a crock of nasty smelling sticky stuff.

Don't feel bad, there's plenty of other lemmings out there to comfort you.

About 100,000 of them didn't you say?

Wow. You are remarkably bad at this.

Yes, automobiles have been getting safer.

What, do you really think all the drivers are improving? You really think the average driver today is so much more skilled, alert, and attuned to the driving conditions than at any time in the past, that they have improved safety by these significant margins? Come on, open your eyes. Go ahead take a peak.

It isn't the average driver that has improved. It is .... (drum roll) technology. Surprised? In disbelief? Well, you shouldn't be.

Antilock brakes intelligently brake for you when you press the brake, pumping the brakes faster and more quickly using feedback than you ever could.

Airbags intelligently decelerate your body when your driving skills haven't kept you out of harm's way. Airbags do this more quickly and better than your slow and weak human body could.

Then there is the system that takes up slack in your safety belt. Crumple zones, traction control, navigation assistance, engine shut down upon accident, and some even intelligently call for help.

The drivers haven't improved, it is the technology.

.

Now why is the current level of over 100 deaths on US highways okay with you, so long as none occur with autonomous vehicles?

Duh!

I just told you that!

Get a grip and try to keep up.

It's demeaning to you that I have to keep pointing out the obvious to you all the time.

So...now you are on the side.of technological advances?

Yes, it is hard to keep up with your position as itchanges minute to minute.

You still haven't answered the question about why lives lost to a Autonomous Vehicle are worth so much more/so much more tragic than those lost to drunk, careless, reckless, or exhausted drivers.

"You still haven't answered the question about why lives lost to a Autonomous Vehicle are worth so much more/so much more tragic than those lost to drunk, careless, reckless, or exhausted drivers."

You really aren't paying attention are you?

I posted my answer (recopied below) to your above question in my post #50.

"I'm not against the concept in principle.

I just know from my daily experiences with my own desktop computer that the execution of the concept won't come anywhere near to meeting the objectives.

On a desktop you just have the annoyance of having to do restarts several times a day but there's no restart after you've been anonymously guided under a tractor trailer by a silicon valley teenager, and your previously perfect driving record won't count for anything as your head's being removed from your body by one his software "bugs"."

Over and out.

....and you still haven't answered the question.

I totally agree, any improvement in miles/death, cannot be due to driver qualifications.

Especially here in Lowbuck, TX. These people are crazy on the road here.

Just imagine what the improvement in miles/death would be if we gave driver's licenses only to individuals who actually had some actual real training in driving (not that introduction to driving kids get in high school driver's ed class) and were able to demonstrate an above average proficiency behind the wheel.

OR, basically no one would be allowed on the roads.

Let me see, huge savings in fuel imports in the U.S.♠

Huge decrease in wear and tear on public roadways.♠

Huge decrease in traffic fatalities per driven mile.♠

Huge decrease in the consumption of raw materials used in automotive production.♠

Huge decrease in the money spent on "cheap" road snacks.♠

That makes a flush. Go ahead and flush it now.

I would say, quality has been dropping as time goes on.

Our drivers ed class was a whole semester of classroom instruction, on top of 10-20 hours behind the wheel with our instructor, before we got our licenses.

Even coming off the farm, I myself failed my first driver test when I got my licenses.

I took our truck that had the racks on it for loading horses - had to do a 3 point turn as well as backing up - and I used only the outside mirrors. He failed me, because I didn't used the interior review mirror. But with the rack on the truck, all I could see out of the back window was rack.

The instructor was impressed that I could lay either side of the tires on a painted line in the parking lot with the mirrors. Handling the vehicle wasn't the problem. He wanted me to visual look. Nothing wrong with that. To this day I do it.

My twin sister, to this day, will remind me.

There is a twin of you? Tell me more.

Lots of stories...

Well, when I was about 20-22 years young and stupid, a group of my friends, traveled around and went to arm wrestling tournaments.

She was always wondering where I was going... I finished my work early and I was getting ready and she asked, I told her, she laughed and asked if she could go along... I told her she'd be the only girl... she went anyways, and at the tournament she sign up for the women's league... I gave her a few tips and she brought home a trophy.

the next night, all of us brought the trophys to the tavern that gave us gas money for the tournament, to put in their trophy case behind the bar. My sister give hers, they were surprised she didn't look like a arm wrestler, a few guys challenged her to turn wrists. but I knew better, she helped me bale hay and wasn't going to be a party for them. And it wasn't.

The first challenger was the local Casanova, I put $5.00 on my sister to win. Everyone thought that was a joke. She snapped his wrist in about 5 seconds and had him pinned in 7.

and quickly said next... the challengers backed off in a hurry. They could not figure out, my sister was about 5'-10" not skinny, not fat, but in shape she was also "Miss Farm Bureau" which I teased her about (She play softball, and rollerskated a lot.) so she was in shape... from on and of the farm.

Anyways, funny as hell, to see her put these guys in their place, with little effort.

...and to think I used to have five of them. All older. OMG. I bet she is a hoot. My wifey used to be a competitive roller skater (dancing on roller skates, basically), and her legs were still something when she found me many years later.

Yes,... She's my dads favorite. Makes my older sister jealous.

my sister returned the favor and she took me roller skating.. but I don't think it had anything do to with returning the favor...

My dad sent me to Bob Bondurant's driving school when I turned 16. I agree totally. We do not have many actual drivers out there. Most are machine operators, and not very good ones at that.

"... if we gave driver's licenses only to individuals ... able to demonstrate an above average proficiency behind the wheel..."

.

That could become a very elite group out of reach for most new licensees, depending on how exactly you measured 'above average proficiency'. Not only will it initially be difficult for relatively inexperienced drivers to meet the average proficiency of those with experience, but, as only the very best newbies will be getting licenses, the average proficiency is likely to sky rocket. Once the newbies, who from the get go had proficiency comparable to experienced drivers, do obtain some seasoning, they are likely to be really raising the bar.

By above average proficiency, I didn't mean to imply relative to experienced drivers. However, I think the current driving tests are a joke. New drivers should be able to maneuver a vehicle quite well and should be able to demonstrate to the evaluator not only the ability to operate the vehicle and obey traffic laws, but how to handle emergency situations.

I agree completely.

" if we gave driver's licenses only to individuals who actually had some actual real training in driving (not that introduction to driving kids get in high school driver's ed class) and were able to demonstrate an above average proficiency behind the wheel."

That still doesn't weed out the assholes.

When I was 20, we had an neighbor about 90 years old, he was always visiting the neighbors, taverns and golf courses.

Anyways he always brought small projects that needed repairing. One time, I had a softball game and just finished chores running a little late, and was headed to the house, he brought a flat tire to get fixed...

Well, I had pulled tube, patched it, and replaced it in about 5 minutes, All the while with him, telling me how to do it... after it was done, he offered me the $2.00 he was accustom to paying and continued to criticized the poor job I did and told me how I should have done it.... I thanked him for the pointers and told him, I'm running late and have to go.

He then made a comment that they shouldn't give people drivers licenses to anyone under 25 years of age. I stopped and asked him why.

He then said, because all they do is drive around with no place to go and doesn't accomplish anything.

I shocked him with my response which was, I agree with you 100%, and they should also take away the drivers license after they turn 65, for the very same reason.

"He then said made a comment, that, they should give drivers licenses to anyone under 25 years of age. "

I assume you meant to use the word shouldn't, instead of should.

That's a pretty good response for a 20 year old.

I just fixed that among other things... and then I read this comment...

Nope, it doesn't.

There are some people who are always assholes, some who are never assholes and some who turn into assholes when they reach a given level of frustration. Having a larger portion of competent drivers on the road may reduce the frustration level and in turn reduce the number of assholes on the road at any given time.

And isn't it better to have competent assholes driving the highways than incompetent ones?

They are, after all, like opinions. Everyone has "one" attached, whilst some need a new "one".

There is a remedy for them too!

TrackingPoint is an American company that produces rifles with precision-guided technology that calculates the range to a target and optimises the gun accordingly. Here's the $50,000 Bolt-Action .338 TP rifle. The preceeding was not an advertisement, but is edumacational material about removing arseholes from traffic. Of course, it is highly illegal, and not recommended practice, and if you try it, you will be caught, by a bigger, badder daddy bear.

Hey,... this isn't LA in the eighties.

"... That still doesn't weed out the assholes. ..."

.

Whoa! Slow your roll. Best not to conflate asshole-ishness with incompetence. While those qualities are not necessarily mutually exclusive, co-occurrence is not very common.

.

Some of my favorite people are assholes. Once I am confident of their freedom from the constraints of niceness, communication becomes highly efficient and nearly effortless. I never leave a direct discussion of a matter with them still uncertain of how they feel about it.

.

Even strictly in the realm of driving, I don't see 'nice' as being necessarily more safe than 'asshole'. I'm pretty sure most of those 'nice' drivers are typically only aware of the drivers with their field of view, and are unaware of anyone behind them for the most part. ....at least that's the most plausible explanation I can come up with to explain why the 'nice' drivers do things like slam on their brakes (with several cars behind) in the traffic circle, to let the car on the right merge.

Looks like TNC has a really sweet little chart there, and wow, it definitely seems to be going down well before the advent of autonomous vehicles (unless you consider auto-pilot to fall in the category). By the way, fighter pilots in the Battle of Midway, tended to get bored and fall asleep in formation, so they would rig up slices of tire inner tube to hold the stick for them. That is until their wing commander leading the formation would call them up on channel and say, "Hey Joe, wake the hell up and fly, you're drifting off out of formation!" Those guys really, really, really were more afraid of sharks than of the Japanese fighter pilots. You don't want to get lost in the wide Pacific Ocean, bad form!

there isn't just one algorithm to handle the various situations.

I suspect he meant "set of algorithms".

The set of decision solutions will have to be set by legislation, not programmers. There will probably be different sets for different countries, so you will have to download an addendum every time you drive over a border.

and in the mean time,... courts will set the precedence until the new updated laws?... will catch up..

Oh, THAT makes so much more sense. I can see the "set of algorithms" changing like the weather in foggy bottoms. I also cannot see autonomous cars going anywhere I need to go, or being available to come pick me up.

I would not own one on a bet.

If it comes down to it, there is always a horse.

So what do these things to when you run out of a "marked" road? Just stop? What if you have to turn off a "marked" US highway onto a Farm to Market Road, a paved path, or Dog forbid, a dirt road?

Stupid, just plain stupid. If city dwellers want them, sure I hope they enjoy being on an "egg conveyor" system. Better yet if there is no view. They obviously have no need to see what is going on around them, or care, or know they they are going to end in a split second (collision).

It makes for a lot of "drunk" riding. Maybe that would be a slight improvement over the average driver on late night weekends.

States would have to tax the dawg out of AN, because there would be far less revenue from traffic citations. How does one go about giving a citation to a AN?

By the time these AN's take over, there will be no problem with different sets of regulations in other states or countries, it will be one world govmint, with one rule for everyone, no vote, no freedom, and no choices. Just existence, if you choose the blue pill.

I too will never buy one.

I don't care about any of the arguments, I want to drive myself.

Some of us have already driven ourselves -- mad.

. . . he said, with buggy whip firmly in had, and white knuckles!

Quite honestly James, I understand what you are saying right up to the point where you departed into a rant. I know full well that many places in America are not firmly attached to reality or for that matter have made it to the 21 century yet. I have no problem with “for morons only” roadways. The rest of us will be that much safer and the attrition rate for morons ought to guarantee their total extinction within a decade or so.

Of course there are far too many roads, cow paths, fire breaks, in America to believe that full auto drive all the time every where is going to happen soon but mark my words, it will happen. Caveat; If our adoption of train control systems is any indication it may be a while.

I certainly agree with that last sentence. I can't imagine what Teamsters Union can do with this tech.

So you already took the blue pill? Sorry to hear that. What makes you so sure everyone out there on the road is a moron, except, of course, you?

The old saying: "Everyone in this asylum is mad except me" comes to mind.

I already know (as most of you do by now), that I am as mad as a march hare, but I can still smell a denier of the status when I smell one. Sniff, sniff.

No arguments from me on that account. Hey was that you that passed me on I-27 this morning, while weaving lanes? I was doing speed limit + 5, and whomever it was must have been clocking over 95 mph. Narrowly missed me, then even more narrowly missed the rear end of the fellow ahead of me in the middle lane.

I'm sure he (or she?) was in his 20s, had the reflexes of a jet pilot and could handle any situation. Then he blasts around my mother, she panics and runs off the road, taking two other cars with her. And he probably doesn't even notice. (Yeah, I know, she should have had her keys taken away years ago. But we live in Florida and everybody drives until they are 95 here.)

What could be a script for ethics and morals. It probably consumes a lot of learning resource/memory too I guess.

Would AI ever learn to handle a deli ma?

In the meantime wouldn't the losses due to inappropriate ethical AI decisions still be far less than those as compared to normal human driving errors?

like the automatic welder you mentioned... they are just following a program... after your set the reference points.

for welding, its quite easy to set the parameters... but it is limited on its abilities.

I agree with you Phoenix, But let me ask you this, how is driving to work and back any different than welding tanks? We fill the roadways with morons, something we don’t usually do to stainless steel tanks. LoL

So let’s look at that variable. Morons. A computer has no problem with roadways. They are fixed, solid, not prone to moving except in California. The paint lines are set, the on and off ramps set, speed set, So a computer should have no problem there. If the car in front is comp and the car behind is comp then they maintain a safe distance between them without a problem. My work doesn’t move. My house doesn’t move. The parking space at work or my garage doesn’t move or change direction so the car should always be able to find them.

SO far so good, but wait, there’s more! Now we add the moron factor. The person who cuts in between the two comp cars that are maintaining a safe distance causing both to have to rapidly adjust. Then we have the “idiot light” folks who believe that if they put on their turn signal they can pull over immediately regardless of the car being there. Or the “that stop sign doesn’t apply to me” folks or the "I don’t have to wait my turn at the four way" folks, or the "Yellow means speed up" folks. The let’s come to a complete stop in a travel lane on the interstate folks. All of these stupid human behaviors and many others are what cause the problem for the autodrive cars.

Fact: humans don’t deal with these moron behaviors well either.

my point is... just welding tanks,... not surprises or special issues... good to go...

as far as driving a car... "defensive driving" kept me accident free for over 40 years. And I still consider myself lucky.

I like to add,... "defensive driving" was the most important thing I learned in Drivers ED.

And I'm sure that is the basis of the programing structure for Autonomous Vehicles.

Exactly my point. Defensive driving is all about protecting yourself from morons with drivers licenses. When all cars are automatic then the problems will be very rare.

My thought for starters would be to have all cars and semi’s equipped for autodrive abilities and for those to be used at first on interstates as they are already limited access and have a much bigger roadway area than state highways. This is also where poor driving habits create the most danger and fatalities. With all cars and semi’s computer controlled I can guarantee you that travel will be not only safer, but faster as speeds will be able to be increased because machines can handle it whereas many humans can’t. Imagine no more 100+ car and truck fog/snow/rain/visibility collisions?

So you pull into the on-ramp que and stop. You are instructed to turn off manual drive capablility. The roads computer then links to your car and based on your programmed destination plans you the fastest route. It then lowers the protective barrier that keeps morons off the autodrive roadway and then accelerates and merges you into traffic flow. Upon reaching your destination exit the computer pulls your car into the exit que and stops. Then it disconnects autodrive and allows you to re initiate human drive and go on your way.

If at anytime the auto drive fails or you attempt to disengage autodrive the car engages a protected back up control system. It engaged and pulls the car over, shuts it down, and notifies the police to come get you safely off the roadway. Oh and while it does this, none of the other cars slow down to rubber neck making it safer for everyone.

I tend to be more of an offensive driver and a firm believer in the first rule of Italian road racing. As long as you are faster, what is behind you, doesn’t matter. but would gladly turn the job over to the computer and enjoy the scenery if I could.

well what do you know... we have the same point all along... just stop crowding me and stay on your side of the point...

"... It laid down a perfect bead with flawless penetration, no discoloration or warpage and almost zero slag and in far less time than a human could. ..."

.

I think you are a bit head over heals for the idea of a robowelder. Slag? For a robotic weld on stainless? Come on. 'Hardly any'?!? There should be none, even for a mere human.

Sure, stick welding and fluxcore both have stainless options, but no one uses that as robotic processes. Why would they? Who wants to go clean up slag, and use up all the man hours you saved with the robot.

Perhaps it will help to keep in mind that the weld parameters still have to be programed in by someone with welding knowledge.

Ok, so now you know how long it's been since I dropped a bead.

Nah, robowelders are neat, sure, but a Plasma CNC or 3D printer are way cooler. :-)

If the settings are correct,.. I won't argue... they have automatic orbital pipe welders for sanitary Process Piping. I just got info from one of my feeds where One uses TIG welders. And it was similar as he discribed.

now,... if you get someone who doesn't know how to set one up... the weld resembles an abortion gone bad.

Sure. Porosity, too hot, too cold, undercut, tungten inclusions, awful....but slag?

Slag typically requires flux.

Then we have the Mennonites in Minnesota that do not want to use septic tanks for gray-water because that is technology (even though it would probably prevent ground water pollution - the very water they and their neighbors use for drinking water) or else face a problem on judgment day.

AV to them might be just giving the horse his head, and dropping the reins in one's lap for the journey home from town?

Everything is relative, and most of my relatives are off doing something else right now if still above ground.

Seems most people on this thread have missed the point. The OP is not about whether AVs should be on the road, that is a fait accompli. It's not about whether you would own, or even use one.

Read the linked article. It is about the moral and ethical implications from an engineering standpoint. Personally, I thought it was a good read.

It is about the moral and ethical implications from an engineering standpoint.

No, no one missed it. To be able to discuss moral and ethical implications, first you need to understand the implications and the possible ethics.