Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: With Driverless Cars, a Safety Dilemma Arises: Would you buy a car that might decide to kill you? [View all]Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)57. Please read post #37 again
"Full automation" even if and when it appears, will most certainly have the capability of being overridden. So the capability of overriding parts of the functionality isn't what differentiates it in the first place.
The point is "full automation" isn't going to just suddenly appear. There's going to be a series of technologies employed which will lead up to it. And while you will be able to override some of them, you probably aren't going to want to because like traction control, stability control, anti-lock brakes, and many other forms of automation they are going to make driving safer.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
77 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
With Driverless Cars, a Safety Dilemma Arises: Would you buy a car that might decide to kill you? [View all]
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2016
OP
No - it works with input X=output Y not with every possible scenario linked to a specific response
whatthehey
Jun 2016
#12
Values aren't necessary, just priority commands. Value driven AI is a fair way off yet.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#33
I agree it is very contrived and provides cause to wonder abouit the result will be used.
Todays_Illusion
Jun 2016
#59
Keen way for a group to plot to kill someone -- simply step in front of their car and . . .
Journeyman
Jun 2016
#3
Well, I certainly can't see any reason why we should be slightly suspicious of...
Shandris
Jun 2016
#10
Yep. Statistically flying is *much* safer than traveling by car, yet people fear flying much more--
tblue37
Jul 2016
#66
This reminds me of one 5-year period when I kept getting called for jury duty. Over and over again,
tblue37
Jul 2016
#70
Without aids I am profoundly deaf. With them, I still can't understand most speech unless
tblue37
Jul 2016
#77
We need individual transport pods--like in "Minority Report," or "The Jetsons":
tblue37
Jul 2016
#69
I'm guessing the 1% will be able to pay for the "personal protection priority" option. n/t
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#26
As a career machinist, I'd bet you've had close calls with human error.
JustABozoOnThisBus
Jun 2016
#40
Considering how often your cell phone drops calls or your tablet freezes up or gets
tblue37
Jul 2016
#71
Driverless Cars Should Kill Passengers To Save Lives - But Then People Won't Buy Them
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2016
#44
If an airline pilot ever had to choose whether to kill everyone on the plane in order to save a much
TacoD
Jun 2016
#50
With my last job I was driving all time on Florida streets. I'm all for driverless cars.
RAFisher
Jun 2016
#56
Right now we are all at the mercey of other drivers and have managed to reduce hiway deaths/per
Todays_Illusion
Jun 2016
#58
I would trust the driverless car over a normal car, unless the driver is a woman.
Little Tich
Jun 2016
#60
So you are saying pedestrians would be walking where they obviously aren't supposed to be
alphafemale
Jul 2016
#61