Autonomous Vehicles: Innovation, Ethics, and Responsibility

To be able to discuss morals and ethics, firstly, one has to actually possess morals and ethics. That leaves me out. I say drag hang 'em all! I am going to revert back to low tech before I enter my second childhood (and no Mildred, I have not gotten over my first childhood yet). Hey Mildred, you wanna come over and play Cowboys and Floozies? You be the floozy!

No, I read it. I simply found it very naïve and was enjoying battering with the good folks on this thread. Ok, my background is a bit different than most of the folks here so let me help with something from my field of study. Moral and ethical considerations are only pertinent to thinking, feeling individuals. Machines have no agenda, no values, no feelings, no desires to fulfill, so there is no way to equate morals and ethics to them. Granted, anthropomorphizing machines is nothing new, but really not accurate (since they are not living beings in the same sense as we are). A machine's awareness of the world is only as broad as the programmers make it. The variables it will consider are only the ones it is given to evaluate. The decision it makes is strictly limited to its programming. At no time will you find a computer dealing with a crisis of conscience. HAL is not even close to reality. Nor will they be able to anytime in the near future (if anything, think the Azimov story, “I Robot,” and function of a difference engine).

Let’s face it, there are a good many humans who have no feelings, morals, ethics or conscience, so why we would expect such behavior from machines when we don’t even expect it, insist upon it, or effectively punish the lack of it in our fellow people is beyond me.

The reality is stark. There are no morals in random acts of fate. The universe applies no ethics in the vagaries of your future. Machines really don’t “care.”

Some do see the Universe as nothing more than a stochastic assemblage. I hold a greater vision of the Universe, but one I will choose to no longer share about on this forum.

Removing G.O.D. from the equation was the first step down the long path of making America into Amerika (socialist nation, no longer based on Liberty). Most people mistake Liberty to mean the freedom to act in a randomly willful manner, the utmost in selfishness, self-serving behavior. I disagree. I say Liberty is the freedom to choose with deliberation how I will conduct myself, thoughtfully, even prayerfully at times, so that I maximize my potential to fulfill my true destiny, and to simultaneously assist other pilgrims in the same journey.

The only part I object to is a government that assumes the role of dictating what the feeling and thinking will be, and to set artificial boundaries that stifle the souls of mankind.

Now, to keep this somewhat on point, God could care less about our cars or for that matter any of the other ways we get around. So it really matters not to the Almighty whether you or your smartphone is driving your car. Now if you used your car as a weapon to kill others I would imagine your turn at the gates in front of St. Peter is not going to go well regardless of who was driving because it’s the intent that’s being judged.

“The only part I object to is a government that assumes the role of dictating what the feeling and thinking will be, and to set artificial boundaries that stifle the souls of mankind.”

Yes, I object to this too becasue this is what happens when governments try to use religion, or any other dogma based doctrine to control people.

There are statistics and then there are statistics. We all know that numbers can be manipulated to demonstrate just about anything. So here are the governments statistics.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-autopilot-cuts-crash-rates-by-40-government-finds-2017-1

Another amazing aspect of human nature is the number of people who will ruin their personal and professional reputations in some sort of strange vendetta against change and progress, both of which are inevitable. A certain New York Times Auto Writer comes to mind.

http://techland.time.com/2013/02/14/tesla-motors-pours-cold-data-on-new-york-times-model-s-review/

We also know, or should know, America is the most litigious nation on earth. We allow law suits in our country that would not even be entertain or even result in the attorney filing the suit to be held in contempt in other industrialized nations.

https://teslamondo.com/2015/12/25/can-autopilot-survive-sue-happy-usa/

http://insideevs.com/tesla-autopilot-faces-pressure-from-lawsuit-happy-litigators/

Human behavior can be puzzling. Why are so many scared of everything? Why do we tend to not take responsibility for our mistakes. We have all heard “it’s the cars fault” for as long as there have been cars and very rarely has it ever been “the cars” fault.

So perhaps a review of human morality and ethics (maybe even intelligence) would be more beneficial than questioning a machines "motives".

Nail on head there. Human morality and ethics remains essentially 7th Century, whilst tech marches into the 21st Century.

Cars are tools, I just prefer that my tools not rise up against and smite me on mine brow.

"... Why are so many scared of everything?..."

.

You might be misreading their motivations. That look in their eyes isn't from being stunned by fear, they are drunk with the possibility of richs....that is often what motivates many of the litigious excesses.

Autonomous vehicles... they should just address the real issues and call it what it is... They see that social media is more important than controlling one's vehicle.

Instead, they should address the 'Dead Walkers' that walk and drive among us.

Not just texting and driving, but texting, speeding, and running stop signs pedal to the metal without looking. There are certain people out there that need to be in a padded cell for life.

Clearly, these folks at least need to have their driving privilege revoked, and then AV makes perfect sense for them. Around here, we call it "Citibus."

If they even had insurance (which I doubt in many cases), they should have the little "safe driver" gadget that would rat them out (that is if they are classified as a risk due to previous ticketing, etc.). I have lost all sympathy for losers. Because...wait for it..."We are the champions my friends...and we'll keep on fighting 'til the end."

Driving to work this morning, a question regarding autonomous cars evolved in my head.

How do self-driving cars handle situations where they have to violate typical rules....or perhaps the question really is 'how is the driving algorithm set up to handle when the vehicle has to violate the rules of the road'?

Here's the specific situation that I'm thinking of. Driving to work on a busy two or three lane limited access highway (i.e. an interstate). The vehicle is in inside lane traveling at the speed limit keeping the appropriate 2 seconds between it and the car in front of it. As it approaches the point where the vehicle needs to move to the outside lane in order to exit the interstate there is not enough space between the cards to the right to allow it to slide in without seriously violating the 2 second rule.

While I suspect the 2 seconds, may not be a hard absolute limit, I'm curious:

• how tight the vehicle would consider too tight to attempt to butt in.
• And if it's too tight, what would it do?
• Slow down in an attempt to find a gap behind the vehicle that's keeping it from moving right or some other vehicle further back?
• Speed up to find a suitable gap up the road?
• If it slows down, how much havoc would that create in the traffic chain behind?

I know sometimes one has to be a bit assertive (aggressive?) to get other drivers to let you in regardless of whether you're moving toward the exit lane or merging in and over to the inside lane.

Perhaps with only autonomous cars on the road it wouldn't be a problem. The other cars could be programmed to be kind and allow additional space when it observes a car to the left with it's turn signal on, or gets a radio/wi-fi signal requesting to be let in.

I believe the terms "nice" and "kind" are as useful in software as is the concept of "user friendly". In Texas, we have these road signs that simply state: "Courtesy pays."

I suspect the automatons need to be courteous almost to a Canadian extreme, but not quite as extreme as that. We don't want fisticuffs over whom had told the other "you first" the most times, devolving into "you first, or else". LOL

How about a new signal system where one automaton says to another, "hello, I want over, could you drop back a couple notches on speed?"

Thank goodness this has not devolved into a joke barrage about two automatons walk into a bar...

I agree. It seems like it will be easier with a road system where only autonomous vehicles are operating as such rules (courtesies/protocols?) can be established.

But with a hybrid road system (mixture of autonomous and human drivers) I question how that would work. Some folks are much more cooperative than others. If a driver is attempting to butt it but doesn't have his/her signal on even a nice guy like myself has a strong urge to close the gap and keep him/her out.

Whereas, if they are using their signal, I'm inclined to give them some space.

Then there are places (not dropping city names here, but insert whichever one feels "right"), where if you use your signal, it tells the other driver to hurry up and jet ahead so as to completely inhibit your lane change(s). They have a name for these, I shall not repeat. They are "the nameless inhabitants".

I don't think a simple consistent uniform rule or set of rules for autonomous vehicles would work well when attempting to integrate with us fleshlings.

If the rules are consistent and uniform among autonomous vehicles, people will game the system. A small subset of those people will game the system significantly and in ways that may cause serious disruption to travel time or safety.

If there are serious accidents as a result, or if riding in an autonomous vehicle sometimes takes much longer than if a fleshling drove, the proponents of autonomobiles will be lobbying hard to introduce legislation to curb such practices. Depending on how those still with their hands on the wheel handle the proposed new restrictions, the backlash might be enough to keep autonomous vehicle on the sidelines for quite some time.

.

Ashby's law of requisite variety strongly suggests no simple solution will be effective.