Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

[The Stormbringer]

I hear what you're saying, but someone died. Can we not just immediately launch into sardonicism and 'acceptable losses'?

I'm not launching into acceptable losses, I'm trying to slap some sense into the people flailing about in techno-panic screeching, "SHUT IT DOWN! SHUT IT DOOWWWWWN!" without even considering the fact that it's already much safer than current drivers.

The point isn't to ignore someone died, we should definitely be looking to making improvements and seeing why this happened, but we also shouldn't let it impede progress when it's already superior to what we've got. People shrug off automobile related deaths every damn day, but as soon as it involves 'a computer machine' they suddenly freak the fuck out. That's stupid and ignorant.

[Doctor Amadeus]

id guess they would look into that. for example an engineer is responsible for a construction his stamps upon. a supervisor is responsible for his crews safety in industrial plants. in my old working place a union worker got injured on the job. his supervisor was on vacation so he hadnt even set him on the task he got injured on. however when he came back from vacation he was investigated and found guilty of negligence because it was found that he had not trained the worker properly for said task (arguable personally but just an example here).

based on that i think they could look into putting responsibility on the coder or engineer. However it wont be easy given how many people, the variance and incident would be part of this.

Law makers are going to have to look into that. I think there are ways to make it work, I do, I am not against A.I Driverless cars per say, but I would pump the brakes so to speak on anything like this that has the great ability to have a real impact, especially ones that result in a loss of life.

I have no doubt anybody working on this program would never want something like this to happen, but the question that will need to be answered before any progress can be made is, what went wrong, and what can be done to make sure this never happens again and can't.

[Wulfstan]

Wait... You're an SJW against STEM?

Are you real?

- - - Updated - - -



Pedestrians have the right of way.

I tend to believe the 2.5 half ton vehicle does.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm not launching into acceptable losses, I'm trying to slap some sense into the people flailing about in techno-panic screeching, "SHUT IT DOWN! SHUT IT DOOWWWWWN!" without even considering the fact that it's already much safer than current drivers.

The point isn't to ignore someone died, we should definitely be looking to making improvements and seeing why this happened, but we also shouldn't let it impede progress when it's already superior to what we've got. People shrug off automobile related deaths every damn day, but as soon as it involves 'a computer machine' they suddenly freak the fuck out. That's stupid and ignorant.

Ok you go ahead and do that, and when people start electing officials to ban these cars or even vehicles with A.I as an assisted driver you will only have yourself to blame.
I am sure elevators could fail too, along with a lot of automated technologies like escalators. But if you think you are going to brush off people's fears or serious concerns about A.I then you are a bigger fool than those who think the A.I's are alive or going to actually rise take over the world.

[Vanyali]

Man, this will make small towns interesting. Where the only option is to jaywalk because there are no labeled crossing sections.

I'm looking at you, Granbury Square...

which to that end, I think a human should always have the option of overriding.

I'd hope that with autonomous cars would come the need for less roads (because most congestion is because people can't drive for shit), or rather, less busy roads, which would allow for better pedestrian access to most things. Up to and including bridge-walks and actual crosswalks installed places.

Again, though, even if someone is jaywalking AI would still be able to see them and stop in time, just as human drivers do now, unless they decided to dart in front of cars. Which is deserving of getting dinged if only to have them never do it again.

[Netherling]

I can assure you we aren't, there is nothing we test or ever put any benchmark especially when it comes to human beings has ever been put to being anything but next to a miracle for people to accept.

I mean, i know those are English words but I can't make any sense of this... sentence? I didn't understand much of what you said in your post so I don't know whether you're in favour of driver-less cars or not.

OT: It would be ridiculous to focus on this one incident and abandon the technology, which I'm sure we won't. Roads will be a lot safer when there are more of these, but the thought of someone hacking these does worry me a little.

[The Stormbringer]

Ok you go ahead and do that, and when people start electing officials to ban these cars or even vehicles with A.I as an assisted driver you will only have yourself to blame.
I am sure elevators could fail too, along with a lot of automated technologies like escalators. But if you think you are going to brush off people's fears or serious concerns about A.I then you are a bigger fool than those who think the A.I's are alive or going to actually rise take over the world.

I mean... first of all, this isn't AI. This is a fuck-ton of sensors and algorithms designed to respond to what those sensors are picking up. We're nowhere close to AI, and you don't even need it for automated vehicles. All you need is all vehicles and objects to be tracked and designated and the necessary programming telling them what to do in any given situation.

Secondly, you already have idiots who panic about this shit. That doesn't make them not idiots. Just look at who we managed to elect for President and you can see that backwards thinking is alive and well. That doesn't make it a good thing.

[cubby]

The car (or the AI) should be fast enough to accommodate for things jumping out at it. It looks like it may be a sensor issue, if I had to guess. Either not working correctly, or it has a blind spot.

Possibly - but nothing is fast enough to move out of the way of everything - there has to be a reasonable threshold. If it was fixable or an oversight, they'll fix it. I have much less sympathy for the pedestrian because they were jaywalking.

And autonomous vehicles are the future - period. Saying that's getting pushed back at all because of this is just a lack for foresight.

[rayden54]

A self-driving car can, realistically, only address the first of those. It may be able to, down the line, provide for some improved response behaviours to the second two, and provide for better assessment tools to avoid the last, but it can't ever eliminate those.

We expect humans to respond to all of those situations. That's pretty much what defensive driving is. It's certainly reasonable to expect a self-driving car to respond at least as well as we do. They should respond better than we do just because their reaction time is faster than ours.

mind you, these things have to be tested in real life and real roads to refine their capabilities. and for that to happen involves the risk of incidents like this happening.

That's actually my problem. The people involved in these incidents didn't sign up to be test subjects. Yet, that's pretty much what they are.

[cubby]

Man, this will make small towns interesting. Where the only option is to jaywalk because there are no labeled crossing sections.

I'm looking at you, Granbury Square...

which to that end, I think a human should always have the option of overriding.

That is a very good point.

I think the business model for autonomous vehicles is medium/big cities, and a shared resource, not necessarily owned by one person - although that is of course entirely possible.

I could see small towns being very late to the game simply because they don't need them. Big cities have horrific traffic, and that screams for relief from 2-4 round trip commutes. Small towns don't even know what a commute it - and I'm not mocking, just pointing out how nice that would be.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I tend to believe the 2.5 half ton vehicle does.

Well it doesn't and it's specifically because there someone a human being behind the wheel that is responsible for knowing that. I mean Pedestrians aren't allowed to cross unless it's at a light and cars are clear at a stop light. Human being's aren't supposed to walk on the highway or certain roads.

But guess what, if you see people on the road anyways, and it's proven you speed up or hit someone when you should have been able to stop, then you are still going to be the one in trouble. Because the responsibility is and the power is in the hands of a driver more than it would be any pedestrian.

[Crissi]

I'd hope that with autonomous cars would come the need for less roads (because most congestion is because people can't drive for shit), or rather, less busy roads, which would allow for better pedestrian access to most things. Up to and including bridge-walks and actual crosswalks installed places.

Again, though, even if someone is jaywalking AI would still be able to see them and stop in time, just as human drivers do now, unless they decided to dart in front of cars. Which is deserving of getting dinged if only to have them never do it again.

As long as you've got city / suburban sprawl, you'll always need a shit ton of roads.

Its just my belief that because computers are purely logic based, they'll never ever fully be able to control for human stupidity. As such, humans should be able to take control when needed. Kind of like airline pilots.

Also, at least in Granbury, darting is needed sometimes when the cars refuse to stop... Would an AI car be able to detect a person at a 4 way stop that suddenly crosses even though the car senses it is its turn to move?

[Dispraise]

I'm not launching into acceptable losses, I'm trying to slap some sense into the people flailing about in techno-panic screeching, "SHUT IT DOWN! SHUT IT DOOWWWWWN!" without even considering the fact that it's already much safer than current drivers.

Yes, I hear that. I would just prefer a productive conversation without making light of a tragic death or demonizing the technology that's supposed to prevent it.

This would be aimed largely at OP, but for the fact that I already have him on ignore.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean, i know those are English words but I can't make any sense of this... sentence? I didn't understand much of what you said in your post so I don't know if you're in favour of driver-less cars or not.

OT: It would be ridiculous to focus on this one incident and abandon the technology, which I'm sure we won't. Roads will be a lot safer when there are more of these, but the thought of someone hacking these does worry me a little.

Meaning that in order for people to accept anything, they have to be first moved to do so by great almost miracle circumstances to do so. Until then news reports like this will only lead to fear.

[Adam Jensen]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a8263921.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-arizona-tempe




Looks like the self driving car fantasy is crashing into reality.

Now there will be more due dates for 'the future' pushed back, and promises downscaled.

The human takeover fudge they have in this case clearly is worse than an actual driver because of they wont have any feeling for the setting which leads to slower reactions in emergency situations. A slower response than a human that is driving the whole time is just a worse outcome.

Hope Uber get sued hard.

Why?

Self driving cars are going to hit people and kill them.

They are not a panacea to traffic accidents.

The question is, will they do less harm than human drivers? I for one believe they will. They do not get tired, they do not get distracted. Can they make mistakes and kill people still? Yes, but I'll bet they'll do less than humans do.

[Minikin]

We expect humans to respond to all of those situations. That's pretty much what defensive driving is. It's certainly reasonable to expect a self-driving car to respond at least as well as we do. They should respond better than we do just because their reaction time is faster than ours.

That's actually my problem. The people involved in these incidents didn't sign up to be test subjects. Yet, that's pretty much what they are.

i agree. im just saying its what it is. thing is AI driven cars will definitely be better than human driven cars. there is no doubt there. the issue is, that it is difficult for the larger populace to grasp that better doesnt mean perfect. for them to be perfect it will take not just a long while, but adoption across the board by at least the majority or everyone on the road. And looking at our roads right now that is far far away in the future. For them to be perfect everyone must be have a autonomous vehicle on the road.

Now the thing is that it has to start somewhere, and once we realize that and that it is better than human drivers, the only two things we can do are. 1. refine it. 2. figure out how to properly apply the law in cases such as this.

[Minikin]

Law makers are going to have to look into that. I think there are ways to make it work, I do, I am not against A.I Driverless cars per say, but I would pump the brakes so to speak on anything like this that has the great ability to have a real impact, especially ones that result in a loss of life.

I have no doubt anybody working on this program would never want something like this to happen, but the question that will need to be answered before any progress can be made is, what went wrong, and what can be done to make sure this never happens again and can't.

of course and props to uber for that, to immediately cease this and figure out what went wrong, rather than "well its better than human drivers still so we will carry right along". i think with that mentality this can be refined and get better (honestly thats the only approach they should take with this, anything short of that should be unacceptable).

[Lochton]

Wow, even automated, Uber can screw up.

Of course, it is good attempts of development, and hopefully taken off the list until adjustments. I do hope that the family left behind is compensated.

[Flarelaine]

Inb4 Republicans pushing for legislation to prevent more autonomous vehicle deaths!

You silly. Autonomous vehicles don't kill people. People kill people.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean... first of all, this isn't AI. This is a fuck-ton of sensors and algorithms designed to respond to what those sensors are picking up. We're nowhere close to AI, and you don't even need it for automated vehicles. All you need is all vehicles and objects to be tracked and designated and the necessary programming telling them what to do in any given situation.

Secondly, you already have idiots who panic about this shit. That doesn't make them not idiots. Just look at who we managed to elect for President and you can see that backwards thinking is alive and well. That doesn't make it a good thing.

HAHAHAHA You are right, but you don't need to listen to these people to be aware they exist and understand why they do what the do. Because unfortunatly on SOME level, these people will need to be convinced.

As to the rest, there is some A.I involved, I am not talking like self aware. I will freely admit my ignorance of what I don't know concerning that, but then now imagine 100s of thousands or even millions that think they know or make it up out of fear. Education is going to need to be the other part of this.


I think Einsteins warning about technology outpacing our humanity was precisely because of things like this.