Yes, let's impede the traffic flow of the vehicle that sees using cameras that are probably recording all the time. That's a smart plan right there.
The car will escalate to an operator, the operator will call the police.
The car will escalate to an operator, the operator will call the police.
If people in the US want to go down that road, it can become standard here too.
Uhh, remind me not to be on a sidewalk near you...
We should not pretend robots are people under any circumstances. If the robot needs me to move for it to continue on, then it better decide to wait.
Maybe you think it should call in a robo cop;)
This should be obvious, but I'll be more verbose, my original comment was in ref to robots with wheels, possessing possibly >MJ of KE, recording their surroundings and uploading it in real time to whatever the skynet equiv is at the time. It's an awful idea, and you are living in a bubble if you think the general population will accept it in the US. Sure, it will happen in more tightly controlled societies.
And there's no need for it to be constantly uploading video to report a lane blockage. Heck, it doesn't need to upload any video to report a lane blockage.
As far as you being in the way: roads are not specifically for humans. A robo car has plenty of right to be there. If you wouldn't stand in the way of a taxi, you shouldn't stand in the way of a robo car.
And there is is. Robots having rights too. As if they are sentient. Next those that don't anthropomorphize machines will be labeled roboist.
Machines are tools. _For_ humans. Nothing more. It's like saying a hammer has rights because I use it.
Making it a autonomous hammer does not change that, in fact it makes it much more important to not pretend it's sentient.
The robo car has no rights, but the person that owns the robo car has roughly the same right to make use of the road whether or not they happen to be seated inside.
Is that wording satisfactory?
Edit: And I mean, it's not because I'm giving robots special treatment. It's colloquial english. I'd say a potted plant has "the right" to be somewhere too.
If you don't mean "right" than don't use that word. As is you have redefined it to be practically meaningless.
I'm not convinced you did re-define it. Your edit makes it more clear:
"it's not because I'm giving robots special treatment"
Yes, you really are. You are arguing that since it's owned by someone it has "plenty of right" to use the road. That's wrong. Par with humans is as special as treatment gets.
F(r) = -F(h)
ma(r) = -ma(h)
a(r) = -a(h)
I mean... oops. Sorry for the hammer malfunction. We sent out a patch and fired someone though.
Admit it, the end solution is to just remove humans from having direct control over their KE and direction? Right? Programmers are always smarter aren't we?
I often wonder if the pre-programmed car proponents realize what side they are on in the war on general purpose computing.
If you so desire, I won't use it, sure.
> A person wielding a hammer is fundamentally different than a pre-programmed hammer some human unleashed on it's own. I consider the latter a serious threat.
> Which a is more important? Should we treat them even remotely the same when one a ends a life and the other a causes a financial loss?
It's more complicated than that. You can drive a car remotely, and you can have a robocar with a human in it.
A car with a human in it deserves more protection, but there's no reason it has to have priority toward getting to use lanes. A car en route to pick up a human might as well have the same priority as one delivering a human.
Whether a car is being controlled by computer or human being shouldn't matter at all. Whether it's carrying a human should matter in some ways but not in others. One case where it shouldn't matter is blocking it; neither should be blocked.
There is human-equivalent software? That's astonishing. Where can I find it? Does it run on ARM?
Edit: Bummer. I called Denso, they were adamant that their human-level code v3.11 is a trade secret.
"A car with a human in it deserves more protection"
We agree. _please_ explain how to accomplish that.
Remember, KE is relative, therefore velocity and mass limits for the pre-programmed machine are not relevant.
Clearly my empty pre-programmed human carrying drone should enjoy the same lanes as a loaded 777. Lets set aside the distraction about remote control which totally ignores the "skin in the physics game" which transportation of life requires.
Did I imply that? I don't see how that's relevant.
> We agree. _please_ explain how to accomplish that.
If you agree with me then why do I have to explain anything?
You're being confusing with all your talk of kinetic energy. Are you trying to imply that robocars inherently make the roads more dangerous? I don't think that's true at all. As an extreme example, even with today's tech you could flood the roads with 20mph robocars and make things safer overall.
> Clearly my empty pre-programmed human carrying drone should enjoy the same lanes as a loaded 777. Lets set aside the distraction about remote control which totally ignores the "skin in the physics game" which transportation of life requires.
If you want to pay the same airport fees, go for it. Seems fair to me.
If you're worried about congestion and road funding when it comes to cars then limit priority to one robocar per person. But when I have exactly one car, my ability to use the roads to drive it to the store shouldn't depend on whether my butt is inside of it.
Why would "skin in the game" be necessary? A taxi with a driver inside can act exactly the same as a taxi without a driver inside.
"A taxi with a driver inside can act exactly the same as a taxi without a driver inside."
Again, where is this software that enables the pre-programmed taxi to "act exactly the same"?
I assume you are making an actual argument, not "it can drive in a line and stop at a stop sign".
And you could remote control a car today if you wanted to. Nobody inside in that case.
Tightly restricted societies that put "safety" over "freedom" will just end up banning non-elite direct human control of KE>nJ. The repercussions of that mistake have ugly ends.
Well, they'll need something to do when speed traps become useless and there are far fewer motor vehicle accidents.