FYI if you didn't catch it, the car was from 2002. This isn't about the same AI driving we usually see here.
No one would do that if they could though. No manufacturer would share it if they were asked either since it could “leak IP” and so the reality is that won’t happen and the manufacturer should probably be responsible.
After all, the operator deployed the autonomous vehicle and should be responsible for what it does. If they aren't familiar with its capabilities and risks, they should not deploy such a vehicle unless they are willing to bear the responsibility for whatever it might do. Until such a time autonomous vehicles have free will and can be held accountable for their actions, the operator who deployed it assumes that accountability.
This isn't even a new concept. If I let my dog loose in the park and it bites someone, I'm responsible for it. We don't hold dogs responsible for their actions, we hold the owner who "deployed" it responsible.
I'll cede that things are a little murkier when manufacturers are pushing OTA updates to vehicles that change their behavior. But there's no reason the operator and the manufacturer can't share responsibility at a split decided in court.
You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars. Nothing force you to have a dog, nothing force you to let him loose either in a park. I hope one day it will no longer be a necessity and public transit will replace that need, but sadly, in most cities, it's pretty far from being able to.
It seems like people don't take their responsibilities as drivers very seriously while pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists are being killed and maimed as a result. All without much consequence to the drivers who create such an unsafe condition. Then when you ask motorists to drive responsibly they rage out at you trying to shift blame to someone else.
I don't see how you could interpret my comment as believing that was the subject.
I'm not arguing about people not taking responsibility either. I'm arguing that one day, we will no longer even have enough control over a car to be able to be responsible for it.
In the current state of "self-driving car" (which is closer to a fancy cruise control) I believe you are entirely responsible for it.
> You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars.
Even if this is completely true, it does not absolve the driver of any responsibility, so I don't really see the point of bringing it up.
> One day we won't be able to drive at all, it will be all self driving, and at that point, you'll no longer be able to do anything to avoid an accident.
When this day comes, who the operator is may change, but there is still an operator somewhere deploying and managing these vehicles to hold accountable. If the taxi you're riding in is involved in a collision, you're not responsible.
It does if your only choice is using it or not.
Being responsible is about making choice to reduce risk. If you are required to use a car to sustains the current society and you have no control over the risk of the car, how can you be the one responsible for what it does?
> When this day comes, who the operator is may change, but there is still an operator somewhere deploying and managing these vehicles to hold accountable.
My point is that this "operator" will be the manufacturer.
> If the taxi you're riding in is involved in a collision, you're not responsible.
Thanks for the perfect example to support my case. At one point owning a car will be just like going into a taxi. You wouldn't be responsible for an accident caused by the taxi driver, why would you be if it was a virtual one? Sure if you still had a wheel, but that's certainly not the future we are going toward.
However if self driving cars aren't individually owned and are run by a transit agency, then the responsibility shifts to the agency who turned on the car. Just like when a train or buss hits a car.
We also don't need to use cars even in cities with poor transit. Most people's car trips are biking distances. Everyone can also own a moped and enjoy 100mpg, easy parking, and experience less congestion than what the 20 foot car introduces to a city. Driving a car is a choice.
An emergency brake isn't the end of all sadly.
> laws require you to be present and focused to drive on the road
Sure, I'm not arguing the current state of self driving car (which I wouldn't really call self driving car, but more like fancy cruise control, on the Volt they called it adaptive cruise control, which make more sense). I'm arguing about the future without a wheel to drive. It's not happening right now, that's for sure, but Google is working on it and there's no
> You still get a dui on a horse even if you are passed out on top and the horse is walking itself home.
You still can act on a horse though, what made you unable to control it is your consumption (which is your responsibility not to). In a self driving car without a wheel, you no longer have any control, even if you wanted to. It may have an emergency brake, but that's can only do so much. In a world where going on a horse would cause you to be inebriated, you wouldn't get a DUI for riding one ;).
> We also don't need to use cars even in cities with poor transit. Most people's car trips are biking distances. Everyone can also own a moped and enjoy 100mpg, easy parking, and experience less congestion than what the 20 foot car introduces to a city.
Where do you live? Have you lived outside of there? In most cities you still need a car. Sorry for the accusation but theses sentences made it seems like you never lived outside of there. I'm close to Montreal in Quebec, even my car yesterday had trouble in some streets, believe me, even though we are lucky to have some amazing bike lane here, biking distance get thrown out of the window for the next 4 months. Walking is much slower right now, a moped would be actually illegal. I traded 2 hours of transit a day to 30 minutes by buying a car. I know so many people that currently do more than 2 hours a day, and that's in a city with a relatively good public transit in a pretty dense area.
Inside most cities, you still need a car. Without cars, you couldn't support the current society. You are free to disagree that our current way of living is alright, but sadly, we can't change that easily and it will certainly not happen before self driving car become the norm.
I live in LA but grew up on the east coast. I'm not sure about Canada, but 50 percent of trips in the U.S. are 4 miles or less (1). 4 miles at a comfortable biking pace translates to 20 minutes, which is pretty doable on a bike (not to mention good cardio). On a bike you don't really experience traffic either, in fact it's almost better to bike when cars aren't moving during rush hour.
Even if people just biked while the weather was nice, it would make a huge difference for congestion and the environment, and would drive public support for better bike infrastructure to make it even easier. It's damn cheap to paint a bike lane, compared to other transit plans after all.
1. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/fig4...
I don’t want personal responsibility. I want to not get killed by an autonomous vehicle, period, and I say hold the party responsible whose responsibility more likely prevents my death. For me, that leans toward the manufacturer. If that bankrupts manufacturers because their devices kill people, fantastic, that just opens the market wide for autonomous vehicles that don’t kill people.
Don't we though? At least in the past, if a dog bit someone, they were sometimes euthanized.
This isn't about AI, it's a simple dumb case "guy presses button that makes metal move. Metal crushes pedestrian". There should be no doubt about who's wrong, and it's not a moral question.
Naturally if the starting was a failure of the remote start system it's the manufacturer, but still not really a moral discussion, just plain old product failure.
I thought it was a Tesla that somehow completely failed to see a pedestrian and then to stop when it made contact, which would have terrible implications for the rest of the fleet.
Not really, this means there is a whole bunch of cars like this already in the wild and people being unaware of this.
I would guess this car has had some kind of aftermarket fiddling...
They pushed the car away from the kid, did they just let it roll back up on him? I doubt it, it's more likely the vehicle was in gear.
I don't mean to downplay the seriousness of this bug, I'm just saying it doesn't have as catastrophic implications as it would if this happened in a state-of-the-art Tesla.
There are approximately 250e6 registered vehicles in the US, so if all the Tesla-related fatalities are those "3 per year" (which seems unlikely to me; it assumes that there are no Teslas involved in fatal accidents when the automatic driving stuff is not engaged) to be disproportionate there would have to be only ~21000 Teslas on the roads. There are close to an order of magnitude more than that at this point.
This site seems to be an interesting aggregation of Tesla deaths: https://www.tesladeaths.com/ It claims 29 deaths in the US from Teslas in 2019; 3 are from accidents where auto pilot use was claimed.