- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Regarding AI and Driverless Cars...
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:30 pm
I was listening to a Radiolab podcast yesterday and they went into a problem that could occur with driverless cars and AI.
They started it off with two I guess philosophical questions.
1) Lets say there's a train coming wildly down the track and there's five guys who are standing directly in the train's path, but you can pull a lever and the train will veer away to another set of tracks and on the other set of tracks, there's only one person. Do you pull the lever or not?
Now, let's say the same scenario is occurring. Except, instead of the lever and separate set of tracks, there's a fat man on a bridge with you. You can push the man off the bridge to stop the train from hitting the five people. Do you push the fat man?
2) Like the last episode of MASH, you and a group of people are hiding out from an enemy who is certain to kill you if they find you. You have a baby who is sick and you know if anybody makes a sound, the enemy will certainly find you and kill you. Do you kill your sick child in order to save the lives of the people around you by smothering the child?
I ask this because they paralleled these two scenarios with driverless cars and AI and let's say you were riding in your car and a wreck was about to happen in which either you or the people you wreck into will die, how is the AI in the driverless car supposed to decide for you who gets to die and who doesn't?
I can't quite remember every facet of the arguments that were made, but I do believe that (and AI as a whole with the road we're going down in regards to AI) is a very very dangerous slippery slope.
Radiolab Episode I Referenced
They started it off with two I guess philosophical questions.
1) Lets say there's a train coming wildly down the track and there's five guys who are standing directly in the train's path, but you can pull a lever and the train will veer away to another set of tracks and on the other set of tracks, there's only one person. Do you pull the lever or not?
Now, let's say the same scenario is occurring. Except, instead of the lever and separate set of tracks, there's a fat man on a bridge with you. You can push the man off the bridge to stop the train from hitting the five people. Do you push the fat man?
2) Like the last episode of MASH, you and a group of people are hiding out from an enemy who is certain to kill you if they find you. You have a baby who is sick and you know if anybody makes a sound, the enemy will certainly find you and kill you. Do you kill your sick child in order to save the lives of the people around you by smothering the child?
I ask this because they paralleled these two scenarios with driverless cars and AI and let's say you were riding in your car and a wreck was about to happen in which either you or the people you wreck into will die, how is the AI in the driverless car supposed to decide for you who gets to die and who doesn't?
I can't quite remember every facet of the arguments that were made, but I do believe that (and AI as a whole with the road we're going down in regards to AI) is a very very dangerous slippery slope.
Radiolab Episode I Referenced
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 1:27 am
11
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:44 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Ultimately AI would prevent this ever being an issue. If everyone drives autonomous cars, assuming all things perfect, there would be no traffic collisions. Hell of a lot safer than today's world. In this scenario I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:46 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
This situation occurs so rarely I don't know why we'd even think of trying to address it. shite is still going to happen whether with AI or left in humans hands. Let's try not to make it more complicated.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:48 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
The autonomous cars will be programmed by humans to react in a certain way but initially I expect it will be for each individual car/truck to do its best within the time and capability of the vehicle to safeguard its passengers much like most human drivers react but with a better chance of a positive outcome.
In a John Stuart Mill's world the cars would be interlinked and each occupant given a societal "value" and the cars would work together to reduce the loss to society as a whole. Good news for the 30 year old genius surgeon and bad news for the 65yo drug addict that has spent much of his adult life in prison.
In the end when autonomous cars are ready for primetime on a wholesale level and are implemented in mass injury and death by vehicle accident will drop significantly. Productivity and/or leisure time will increase for most people with shorter commutes and the ability to utilize commute time for work or some forms of leisure. Insurance rates will drop and the cost of getting good from ports/factories to stores will drop.
Certainly, there are issues to be carefully considered with the upper limits of AI and ethical issues with the programming of autonomous cars but particularly with the latter, I don't think it will be hard to produce a significant net positive for society.
In a John Stuart Mill's world the cars would be interlinked and each occupant given a societal "value" and the cars would work together to reduce the loss to society as a whole. Good news for the 30 year old genius surgeon and bad news for the 65yo drug addict that has spent much of his adult life in prison.
In the end when autonomous cars are ready for primetime on a wholesale level and are implemented in mass injury and death by vehicle accident will drop significantly. Productivity and/or leisure time will increase for most people with shorter commutes and the ability to utilize commute time for work or some forms of leisure. Insurance rates will drop and the cost of getting good from ports/factories to stores will drop.
Certainly, there are issues to be carefully considered with the upper limits of AI and ethical issues with the programming of autonomous cars but particularly with the latter, I don't think it will be hard to produce a significant net positive for society.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:53 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Are there any realistic scenarios related to #1.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:03 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
In a John Stuart Mill's world the cars would be interlinked and each occupant given a societal "value" and the cars would work together to reduce the loss to society as a whole.
I think that would prove to be a huge problem on a philosophical level with a lot of people.
quote:
Good news for the 30 year old genius surgeon and bad news for the 65yo drug addict that has spent much of his adult life in prison.
What about the 30 yr. old oilfield baw in Laffy that's got 7 yetis and an oilfield trash makin oilfield cash decal and a 5.2 F250?
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 8:06 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:12 pm to Obtuse1
quote:who also lost his job to a robot.
30 year old genius surgeon
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:16 pm to airfernando
quote:
Are there any realistic scenarios related to #1.
Minivan with 5 passengers vs a car with one occupant.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:18 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
who also lost his job to a robot.
That one certainly would be coming if not already a reality at the time. The idea would still be that the brilliant surgeons would still be required (for a time) to develop the new procedures the progeny of da Vinci spawn.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:30 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I think that would prove to be a huge problem on a philosophical level with a lot of people.
I agree, a lot of people would balk at the pure implementation of Mill's philosophy of utilitarianism. But, if one looks we see it already embedded in a lot of our lives and ideals. But, like everything in life when it gets to that point there will be a cost/benefit analysis but likely initially simply a 1 life vs 2 lives. I imagine once it(driverless cars) is fully implemented cases of fatalities are going to be low enough people will accept most any criteria.
As for the oil field baw he might just hit the pearly gates in a coffin festooned with a "I shoulda bought a Tesla" decal...
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:22 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
In fly by wire aircraft where computers are making decision that control the aircraft, the big question asked is do you let the flight computers protect the aircraft from damage and try to keep it flying no matter what the pilot does, or does the pilot have the last word and is allowed to override the computers? Boeing allows the pilot to be the ultimate decision maker, but Airbus has the flight control computers protect the aircraft no matter what the pilot does.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:39 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I ask this because they paralleled these two scenarios with driverless cars and AI and let's say you were riding in your car and a wreck was about to happen in which either you or the people you wreck into will die, how is the AI in the driverless car supposed to decide for you who gets to die and who doesn't?
I can't quite remember every facet of the arguments that were made, but I do believe that (and AI as a whole with the road we're going down in regards to AI) is a very very dangerous slippery slope.
It's really a mucked up trolley problem.. which left you with only two choices. Humans are limited by reaction time and if they have no obligation to face that dilemma (whichever choice they make is defensible) the same would have to be true for any AI-powered vehicle.
it's not an ethical problem if we're talking about machine learning. it's a risk management problem. an easily solved one too.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 10:40 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:43 pm to Paul Redeker
quote:
assuming all things perfect,
That's a rather bold assumption, if you ask me. Driverless cars or not.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:23 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
In the end when autonomous cars are ready for primetime on a wholesale level and are implemented in mass injury and death by vehicle accident will drop significantly. Productivity and/or leisure time will increase for most people with shorter commutes and the ability to utilize commute time for work or some forms of leisure. Insurance rates will drop and the cost of getting good from ports/factories to stores will drop.
Could not be more wrong about these statements.
1) If cyber security is bad now, wait till they hack your car and not just your personnel records. Have fun with that one.
2) AI in a car has nothing to do with commute distance. You somehow think an AI car will re-design every city in the nation. Shorter commute time means increased population density. Where will the cars park?
3) With automated transportation, commute time would shrink by small amounts. Not anything close to making a significant impact on your day's work or the resulting leisure time.
4) People already text, talk, and email while they drive. AI cars won't magically ramp that up a great deal. Marginal increases, at best.
5) Insurance and cost of ownership will sky rocket. You will be mandated to install the latest software, the latest updates, patches, and so forth, and guess what, you're going to pay through the nose because the insurance company needs to be able to afford all the monitoring capabilities to check up on you and your car. After all, it's in the interest of safety, the foundation for wanting the AI cars in the first place, according to people like you.
6) Dedicated lanes / roadways etc and continued advances in fuel efficiency will equal or surpass cost savings and time savings on moving goods from ports of entry.
AI transportation will find a niche in urban clusters and there it will be great. Outside that it will be awful.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:06 am to bmy
quote:
it's not an ethical problem if we're talking about machine learning. it's a risk management problem. an easily solved one too.
In your scenario the outcomes for the two options(or however many there are) are never going to have 100% probability so its really a simple choice for a computer to make. The choice of running over the 4 folks crossing the road may have a fatality probability of 80% vs. the choice to slam into the divider which may have a fatality probability of 50% for the vehicle occupants. Easy choice. Even if it was 80.0000% vs. 79.99999% probability, respectively. Still 100% easy choice for a computer to make.
It really comes down to the accuracy of the programmed projection data and the quality of the sensors the computer uses to formulate the outcomes it uses in its decision making algorithm.
Of course, I want my car to prioritize my life over some knuckledraggers schlepping their sorry asses across the street. Slam me into a divider?! I dont think so. Not after the money I shelled on my Tesla AI car.
Bad car! No! Bad.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 12:11 am
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:22 am to StatisticsMoron
quote:
Could not be more wrong about these statements.
That's cute.
quote:
1) If cyber security is bad now, wait till they hack your car and not just your personnel records. Have fun with that one
Certainly, this is an issue as "they" can already hack cars, easily. It will have to be dealt with like any other security issue but like everything computer related the is a cost benefit that will certainly be overcome.
quote:
2) AI in a car has nothing to do with commute distance. You somehow think an AI car will re-design every city in the nation. Shorter commute time means increased population density. Where will the cars park?
I should have been more precise but I assumed anyone discussing this would know commutes would be shorter in duration, not distance we aren't talking about bending space. The autonomous cars have the potential to essentially prevent traffic jams. They can correctly zipper, adjust speed to avoid accordion effects as well as avoid rubbernecking. Traffic flow will be closer to optimum and can adjust departure times for most efficient travel. Glad you brought up parking. Autonomous cars long term will make much more efficient use of parking areas, cutting down space dedicated to it in urban areas. Plus they can drop commuters off and park at remote facilities to further increase efficiency in certain situations and they can be hailed to pick you up as needed or at a specific time.
quote:
3) With automated transportation, commute time would shrink by small amounts. Not anything close to making a significant impact on your day's work or the resulting leisure time.
The more urban areas will see significant reductions in commute time for the reasons discussed above. You forget that your time commuting can now be productive instead of just driving. You can work during the commute, catch up on sleep if your commute is long enough, read a book, watch TV, cut your toenails, write a novel etc. The average US commute is 25 minutes one way so the average person gains 50 minutes a day to do basically anything they do sitting at home or work. More productive and/or more relaxed. The average persons stress level would be reduced as well, better health, better life.
quote:
4) People already text, talk, and email while they drive. AI cars won't magically ramp that up a great deal. Marginal increases, at best.
Some of that is illegal. But, even if it weren't without having to drive a person would be MUCH more efficient at everything but talking. You just can't imagine how much one could get done during the commute time unless you live a couple of minutes from work.
quote:
5) Insurance and cost of ownership will sky rocket. You will be mandated to install the latest software, the latest updates, patches, and so forth, and guess what, you're going to pay through the nose because the insurance company needs to be able to afford all the monitoring capabilities to check up on you and your car. After all, it's in the interest of safety, the foundation for wanting the AI cars in the first place, according to people like you.
Car insurance is a highly regulated industry and the majority of cost is for liability which when fully implemented those cost with drop my multiple magnitudes. Cost of ownership will initially be higher just like the transition from horse and carriage to automobiles. The early adopters will bear a lot of the costs by choice and it will reach a tipping point where it will be more than worth it for most every person who now owns a car. It won't happen in two years but it will happen. All the software updates and patches will be automatic unless they are simply comfort or convenience. Does your insurance company check your car today to see if your brakes are in good working order or whether your tires have adequate tread? Seriously, you are going out of your way to make silly issues that just aren't there. I never said it was all about safety, did you even read what I wrote, there is a LOT to do with comfort and convenience as well.
quote:
6) Dedicated lanes / roadways etc and continued advances in fuel efficiency will equal or surpass cost savings and time savings on moving goods from ports of entry
All of those things you mention could be utilized with autonomous vehicles. Taking out drivers who are limited in time per day they can drive saves a ton of cost. Also, this opens up the use of more smaller trucks to move goods in a more direct path to the end user and cutting out the need for many if not most large transfer facilities. This has the potential to completely revolutionize the movement of goods from port/factory to final destination.
quote:
AI transportation will find a niche in urban clusters and there it will be great. Outside that it will be awful.
Actually trucking both long and short haul has the most to gain from this. Just like it was inconceivable to many in the 80s that the computer would be ubiquitous and in the early 90s the cell phone would be essentially a requirement for modern living autonomous vehicles will become the norm and at some point a requirement for everyday life. The AI for all this to happen is driven in part by Godwin's law and it is coming, like it or not.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:23 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Those are not original scenarios. Those two examples have been talked about a ton in other contexts.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:33 am to athenslife101
quote:
Those are not original scenarios. Those two examples have been talked about a ton in other contexts.
As mentioned by another poster it is the Trolley Problem put forth by Philippa Foote in the 60's. It was used as the basis for MIT's Moral Machine project. It goes much deeper than most people see it. The average person votes almost unanimously to switch and kill one vs 5. Philosophers spend much more time thinking about the action vs inaction portion of the ethical problem.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:38 am to Obtuse1
quote:
The AI for all this to happen is driven in part by Godwin's law and it is coming, like it or not.
Godwin's law states that as an internet discussion increases in length, the probability of invoking Hitler approaches 1.
Is this the AI you're thinking of?
Microsoft terminates its Tay AI chatbot after she turns into a Nazi
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:42 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
Godwin's law states that as an internet discussion increases in length, the probability of invoking Hitler approaches 1.
I am so used to having to reference Godwin's law on the internet my fingers just went on autopilot, obviously their AI is not quite fully baked.
Moore's law...
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News