Warren Buffett says Self-Driving Cars will Decide Whether Humans Live or Die

a reply to: kaylaluv

Do you think the passengers are suffering with lack of control just because they aren't behind the wheel? The only difference with the self-driving cars is - you have one more passenger. That's it.

Yes, I do happen to think that.
At sixteen, I was in the car with a college dude. He told me I should never accept a ride from a "college dude" at sixteen, if I didn't intend to deliver sex. I narrowly avoided rape.
So, yeah, sorry, I happen to not only think that, but have lived it. And that was with just another human, not an AI, whom I have no control over when "they" are taking control and not……with all due respect.

Many of the systems in a car already make life-saving decisions. The airbags have a motion sensor that detects sudden braking. The anti-lock braking has sensors that measure wheel rotation speed against friction. If these don't match safe parameters then the brake is released a little until they match. Some cars already have automatic parking.

It wouldn't be too difficult to add motion detection systems to automatically apply the brakes if an object is seen in close proximity to the front of car - such as a football, animal or another human. If Kinect can recognise human figures, then the technology is halfway there.

a reply to: tetra50

I'm not talking about taking rides with strangers. I'm talking about a husband and a wife with 2 kids in the back taking a trip to the zoo. Or 4 adult friends who are traveling to a concert together.

So, you are saying that we should NEVER have more than just the driver in a car. Really?

a reply to: boohoo

Aside form the fact that the computer controlled car would have been aware of the black ice long before a human....

Car A (Cruise) veers into the oncoming lane, Car B (Average Joe) veers into it's oncoming lane...both cars pass each other safely, and all the other cars around accommodate the emergency actions thanks to their ability to communicate.

originally posted by: stormcell
It wouldn't be too difficult to add motion detection systems to automatically apply the brakes if an object is seen in close proximity to the front of car - such as a football, animal or another human. If Kinect can recognise human figures, then the technology is halfway there.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I thought the computer-driven cars would have sensors that would warn them of ice patches up ahead.

Its still possible that the self-driving car will have to make a decision based on "value of the passenger". Programers can write the fuzzy logic to operate according to how the people with MONEY want it to think. It could even be designed as a Blackbox, essentially, determining whether your life is worth more or less than an insurance claim, like a video poker bet at a modern casino.

You can be certain self-driving cars of future Presidents and other high level officials will be programed to operate in such a way, so there is little reason to believe rich celebrities won't have access to the same tech and built-in protections from the self-driving cars of "regular people".

Also, PLEASE don't dismiss the "click-wrap agreement" issue. Remember we will be "agreeing" to use software, not "agreeing to follow the rules of the road in vehicles under our own control". I highly doubt anyone will win a lawsuit when a self-driving car kills people due to the "click-wrap agreement" they acknowledged by stepping into the vehicle, digitally signed by the phone in their pocket wirelessly.

originally posted by: boohoo
Its still possible that the self-driving car will have to make a decision based on "value of the passenger". Programers can write the fuzzy logic to operate according to how the people with MONEY want it to think. It could even be designed as a Blackbox, essentially, determining whether your life is worth more or less than an insurance claim, like a video poker bet at a modern casino.

This already occurs.

Generally speaking, the more expensive a car, the better the safety capabilities.

a reply to: boohoo

I realize this is a conspiracy website, but this is going a little too far out there for me.

a reply to: KawRider9

I get your point but it's not like it's going to happen overnight. Hell, people are still driving 20+ year old cars right now. They are still going to need service and repair. Even the self-driving cars will need maintenance and repair, so your millions and millions of jobs is just hyperbole. Like Kayla said, trucks will still need drivers in case something goes wrong. And I specifically stated I wouldn't buy a car I can't drive myself so I will be losing 0 motor skills.

a reply to: kaylaluv

So, you are saying that we should NEVER have more than just the driver in a car. Really?

This is from you. Hopefully, I don't have to go back and repeat what I said that lead you to say this. However, your reply to what I said is called this:

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

No, Kayla: I, in fact, quoted YOUR post in reply, as to exactly what I meant and said.
I don't care how many "self-ruled," assumingly, drivers are in a car. The point would be that they are self ruled and we share certain things, via self, but that may even be a stretch nowadays, what with pilots deciding that on the way to suicide they may become mass murderers.

I wonder, are we living in the same world. Does this not all seem very suspicious to you? The uptick in incidents involving the transportation of the public? Ask yourself what the point would be, here. You think AI is your friend or family member, just another driver akin to your family or friends you've embarked upon the evening's entertainment with? Really? AI is far more applicable to stranger, than anything. But I digress. If true AI, it never saw any association nor relationship to you as human or machine, for it is simply AI, and you are nothing to it.

Again. READ. IMAGINE. EXTRAPOLATE.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: boohoo

Aside form the fact that the computer controlled car would have been aware of the black ice long before a human....

Car A (Cruise) veers into the oncoming lane, Car B (Average Joe) veers into it's oncoming lane...both cars pass each other safely, and all the other cars around accommodate the emergency actions thanks to their ability to communicate.

That's how I figured it would work.

This whole "less valuable people will be automatically crashed while the more valuable people allowed to live" stuff is too far out for me to believe.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I realize this is a conspiracy website, but this is going a little too far out there for me.

Hopefully you will live long enough to see my assertions become reality, firsthand.

Afterall, Warren Buffett seems to agree with me and he has CERTAINLY seen how this stuff ACTUALLY works:

Warren Buffett: Self-Driving Cars, Their Effects On Insurances And The Ethics Of Computerized Decision-Making

a reply to: tetra50

I think the point you're missing is nobody needs these cars. It's just a convenience like luxury cars now. These things are going to be really expensive to start with until the tech becomes more widespread.

a reply to: tetra50

Well, the computer in the car won't try to rape you, and it won't feel suicidal enough to kill everyone in the car including itself. You gotta give it points for that. Think of it as the nice android in The Terminator movie - you know, the one that won't ever let any harm come to you.

a reply to: boohoo

The cars would only place an "economic value" if that's how they are programmed. Obviously that's going to piss people off and whoever does that is going to lose business as well as get sued. The people inside the vehicles should have nothing to do with keeping them from collisions.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Well, the computer in the car won't try to rape you, and it won't feel suicidal enough to kill everyone in the car including itself. You gotta give it points for that. Think of it as the nice android in The Terminator movie - you know, the one that won't ever let any harm come to you.

Umm...hacking maybe?

Unethical programming to meet Board/Shareholder demands over safety?

Here is what Buffett said:

"There's some interesting questions. I mean, let's just say you have got a self-driving car and you are going down the street and a 3-year-old kid runs out in front of the car and there's another car coming the other direction with four people in it and the computer is going to make the decision as to whether to hit the kid or hit the other car. And I am not sure who gets sued under those circumstances, you're going to kill somebody, and it will be the computer that makes the decision in a nanosecond and it will be interesting to know who programs that computer and what their thoughts are about the values of human lives and things"

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: tetra50

I think the point you're missing is nobody needs these cars. It's just a convenience like luxury cars now. These things are going to be really expensive to start with until the tech becomes more widespread.

OH. LOL.
I sincerely hope that is the point I'm missing.

I suggest you google automated vehicles. Really. Yes, I don't doubt they'll be expensive. They'll either make you struggle to give up your freedom, or require you to do so, and pay for the privilege, eventually. I'm shocked some days at how little understanding of this phenomena there is.

a reply to: boohoo

He's talking very hypothetically. He's an investment guru - he's not a computer scientist. He doesn't know how exactly these things are going to be programmed. I would think sensors would see the little kid way before the human would see it, and would be able to react quickly enough with the other computers in the other cars to avoid any deaths at all.

Hacking is a real potential problem, and the only thing that makes me a little nervous.

Well, the computer in the car won't try to rape you, and it won't feel suicidal enough to kill everyone in the car including itself. You gotta give it points for that. Think of it as the nice android in The Terminator movie - you know, the one that won't ever let any harm come to you.

a reply to: kaylaluv

No, actually, I don't have to give it points for that. But I will you, because I led you here to see if you would now pick that logic up. And now this tells me we are just arguing for argument's sake, while I defend your right and continue to, to go where YOU want, WHEN you want to go there, and you continue on this course, not seeing that.

There aren't any "nice" androids, AIS, Kayla. They are MACHINES. READ. STOP WATCHING MOVIES. IMAGINE. EXTRAPOLATE. Understand what script code MEANS to humanity. Before it's too late.

Precisely, what it means, for one thing, is anyone in control of the scripting, (who may, in fact, want to rape, kill, or torture you, or make it look as though you did these things instead of them) may be even more able to lead you down a road where that is eventually what happens to you, and nothing you can do to anticipate and prevent that is definitively OVER.
Sincerely,
tetra

originally posted by: boohoo
"There's some interesting questions. I mean, let's just say you have got a self-driving car and you are going down the street and a 3-year-old kid runs out in front of the car and there's another car coming the other direction with four people in it and the computer is going to make the decision as to whether to hit the kid or hit the other car. And I am not sure who gets sued under those circumstances, you're going to kill somebody, and it will be the computer that makes the decision in a nanosecond and it will be interesting to know who programs that computer and what their thoughts are about the values of human lives and things"

And...a human, by the time they analyzed the situation, has mowed down the child, finally attempted to avoid, now hitting the oncoming car...which was completely unaware of what was happening (also human controlled), resulting in 6 avoidable deaths.

A computer would have both cars slowing down immediately, and veering into one another (at their now reduced speeds) knowing that the built in crash protection systems will make the impact survival likely, all the while avoiding the child....in the same amount of time it took the human eye to realize that their was a child coming onto the roadway.

a reply to: tetra50

How is anyone going to force you to buy a self-driving car? I mean yes eventually all cars will probably be automated, but there are still people who want to drive themselves. Maybe a few automakers will strictly sell those kinds of niche cars in the future.

I get where you're coming from and if you're right it would be very scary, but I don't think it's going to happen that way. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.