Fully autonomous vehicles are not legal under current regulations, and California is considering barring self-drive cars that do not have:
- steering wheels
-pedals
-a licensed driver who can take over in an emergency
As with all cases of discrimination, simply set the same test for everyone and there's no problem. All you should have to do is demonstrate that the car is not riskier than a human driver and then you're done.
[Yes, that's definitely easy to do. For sure.]
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36139986
Ian Rawlings
ReplyDeleteGuilt by association, I'm not a fan of it. A fact of wrong doing in any particular case does not prove wrong doing in any other particular case, nor does it provide any guidance in regards to entire industries, or populations for that matter.
Ian Rawlings: Put a bounty on the heads of companies who rig the safety tests.
ReplyDeleteDriverless cars are a danger, in my view. I have an ex and knowing her, she would program the car to go over a really big drop off... I would mess up my face, body and, "now you know the rest of the story #PaulHarvey
ReplyDeleteJust have the driverless car take exactly the same test the rest of us take.
ReplyDeleteThey'd fail the "eye test".
ReplyDeleteMark Ruhland computers are still a bit crap at ocr but they'd probably blitz a standard eye test for driving
ReplyDeleteThe problem legally isn't really if they drive as safely as a human, because they easily pass those tests. But responsibility and liability for the vehicles actions. Although a bit of blurring lines from ABS etc should solve it, it'll make the lawyers nervous.
ReplyDeleteIan Rawlings More than that, it's the industry's track record on cybersecurity that is worrying me. If only for that, an emergency manual override may be necessary.
ReplyDeleteBut also, there may be situations where you need to manually drive the vehicle because the action falls outside of the AI parameters.
I don't know which ones yet (I don't know the AI, after all), but unplanned things tend to happen, particularly when we are talking about something as numerous as cars.
Not to mention if they get hit by an EM Pulse.
ReplyDeleteMark Ruhland cos EM pulses are so common.
ReplyDeleteDogmatic Pyrrhonist Black Hat, anyone?
ReplyDeleteIan Rawlings I would trust driverless car security by Google ahead of engine management security by Chrysler or Toyota.
ReplyDeleteGreg Roelofs: There's no reason to wear a black hat with a HERF gun any more than a black hat with a gunpowder-powered gun.
ReplyDeleteAndres Soolo I expect a HREF gun to be less noisy, smelly and flashy.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd also expect a black hat to use security flaws in the chronically decried car systems before bothering frying it. Then again, who knows what an imaginative terrorist may come up with with available materials in the future?
Elie Thorne: But also less predictably deadly. If a black hat is trying to kill you, this might be a serious downside.
ReplyDelete