I see this pro cross-talk argument all the time... but wouldn't that leave open a big vulnerability for bad actors to send false data between cars and, if they should choose to, control multiple vehicles and cause collisions?
tl;dr: don't trust the client (or other drivers).
Simple scenario to illustrate this: car X enters a narrow bidirectional road which is lined with cars. There is enough room only for one car to pass at a time, safely. Car Y enters from the other end. Several more cars enter behind car Y (we'll call these Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4).
One car must reverse back down the road from the midway point, in order for any cars to pass through.
Car X and its driver cannot see what is behind car Y, but for car Y to reverse it must rely on Y1, Y2, Y3, and Y4 reversing. In order for this to happen, Y4 must first reverse despite not being able to see why it needs to reverse (either through meat or tech sensors).
The optimal solution is that sensor data reviewed in the aggregate by each car leads to a cooperative decision that car X should reverse until it can pull over, and allow the other cars to pass before proceeding.
In an emergency situation it's also possible to envisage scenarios in which shared data analysis and cooperative decision making are optimal. For example, consider cars X and Y now destined for a high speed, head-on collision. The right lane of the road (car X's right, car Y's left) is clear and the left lane (car X's left, car Y's right) is a deep trench. A primitive or non collaborative AI might suggest that both cars swerve to the same direction to avoid collision, which results in a collision of similar magnitude. A better solution than swerving the two cars into each other might be to swerve one into the ditch and one into the road. The optimal solution is likely to swerve only one car and hard stop the other, knowing that the other car is going to move its direction of travel significantly. This can only be done by giving the cars the ability to make decisions collaboratively.
Not as tight an example as yours I'm afraid, but humans make cooperative decisions all the time where we use information and continue to be suspicious of it and hedge against lies. I think any realistic cooperative tech system where there are untrusted components needs to stay skeptical as well.
I'm probably super naïve, but I think there's probably a way of digitally signing hardware components so that we can trust sensor data from other cars.
And on the other hand there is plenty of opportunity to include encryption with gov/mfn signed keys, crosscheck received data with sensor values, etc.
The benefits far outweigh the risks.
People seem to hand-wave and make up what these supposed future self driving cars will do - and worse, they hand-wave and assert they'll be objectively better at X than humans, without any evidence to backup the assertion.
Self driving cars are made by fallible humans using fallible programming languages and constructs. They can't possibly account for every situation or scenario - but people hand-wave and say it magically will.
Sure, one day you'll be able to sleep in the back seat of your car or read a book while it precisely weaves you between traffic only to navigate you right off a cliff. Or the neighbor's kid with a laser pointer prevents your car from turning into the driveway.
Driver-assisted cars are the real future.
Google's road tested self driving car is already safer[1] than a human driving. Suggesting that a computer will be a more reliable processor of data and computer of maths than a human is not something which needs data to back it up. The ability of drivers is so variable and in the aggregate there are so many of them that it's almost self-evident that a self driving car which crosses a very low threshold for entry ("being road legal") will be better than a human.
> They can't possibly account for every situation or scenario - but people hand-wave and say it magically will.
Nobody is saying that they will any more than people argue that autopilot on a plane will. It's very plain to see that right now, as of this second, there is a self-driving car which is safer than a human driver. It is not yet legal to buy, but it doesn't change the fact that it's safer. It may be that a bug crops up which kills a few people. But that doesn't make it less safe, it makes the cause of death for some of the users different to "human error".
[1]http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is-rid...
How many other sectors have abandoned human interference after computers surpassed human performance?
So far, society seems to not be OK with this (as-in we'd rather a person do the killing, even if we think that killing was wrongful).
We aren't OK with autonomous robots having weapons, even though they might be objectively better at guarding prisoners, military bases, killing "bad guys" in bank robberies, etc. We freak out when a fatality occurs at an automotive plant, and those robots only pivot in place!
If society is going to agree we're all OK with a bug left by some short-sighted engineer being responsible for people's deaths - then OK. However, I wager people aren't really OK with this, most just haven't really considered this aspect yet.
Sure there will be legal issues (in a crash who is responsible, the driver, the manufacturer or the programmers) but they will get resolved with time and case law.
The economic advantages to self driving cars are huge (unless you drive for a living but then progress is what it is), 35,000 people a year die on American roads an order of magnitude improvement would save ~32,000 lives a year (and that's just accidents resulting in fatalities, many many more experience life changing injuries), this generation of drivers might not like it but as the cars get better and better at driving themselves the next generation will hand over more and more of the responsibilities until a human driving a car manually on the road will look like an anachronism.
Also people aren't ever going to be happy with a bug in hardware or software killing someone but we are currently 'happy' with allowing tens of thousands of people to die from car accidents, if the motorcar had been invented in 2000 many people would have wanted to ban it immediately.
"You want to operate a 2500KG metal box at 40mph in proximity to people!? oh hell no!"