No Deaths, This Time........

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41923814
Hit by a truck, yes the fault of the trucker but that's cold comfort if you are injured or worse. Note to the programmers, it is entirely possible that other vehicles on the road will not obey the rules.

[bhg481]

No, they won't have to be perfect - just better than humans. The problem is that there are many events where you know the outcome of the actions taken but can never know for sure what the outcome would have been if a different action had been taken. To go back to Ludwig's Brexit example; there will be an outcome but it will never be known for certain what state the country would be in if Brexit hadn't happened.

[pixie374]

No, but when a computer goes wrong, it doesn't do it by halves, make corrections or care in any way... It stopped in the link , making no effort to swerve out of the way. I can't see them ever being safe enough to trust.

[jim360]

The article linked by TTT concludes with the rather important statement that we shouldn't "let perfect be the enemy of good". In this case too it applies because it seems that people are determined to apply perfection to computers and, if (when) they fail to reach that, rely on humans instead. But humans already fail. Badly. A lot. And fatally. And the question only becomes: "are computers better than humans, such that computer-controlled cars will be, on the whole, safer?"

We are probably yet to discover a question to which the answer is, definitively and for all time, that humans are better. Driving is likely to fall victim to the same progress in time.

[pixie374]

I think the point is- if something does go wrong- I would rather have a human driving at me than a machine. Much more chance they will correct it, at least enough to make a difference.

[bhg481]

The reality, Pixie, is that there are lots of computers helping you drive your current car, assuming it's relatively new. There are computers controlling the braking system and others checking for loss of traction/skids and applying corrections to stop you going out of control and you are usually completely unaware of this happening. By relatively new I would guess less than about 10 years old, possibly more than that. My own car is almost 10 years old and has anti-lock brakes and traction control.

[pixie374]

I know, bhg. I had to turn off the parking sensors the first day as they panic pointlessly on a tight three-point- turn and the mirrors are much more accurate. If they can't even get that right, i have little hope!

[bhg481]

Well my parking sensors are fine - they start to let me know when I'm about 3ft from something by a very intermittent beep, finally becoming a constant noise when I'm just about to touch.

[pixie374]

Mine too.... but if I had listened to them, I would still be stuck there now.

[bhg481]

If you can accurately judge the position of your nearside rear wing to less than an inch, then I will agree that you don't need them.

[pixie374]

I don't know about that- but I would expect the sensors to be more accurate than I am, not less.

[bhg481]

Absolutely right, Pixie but I'm sure you've seen people who haven't a clue where their corners are. We watched one yesterday drive till it touched.
They used to sell cars on visibility - I remember an advert for the Ford Cortina Mk I boasting (because of thin pillars) that there was something like 94% all-round visibility. Nowadays, with airbags everywhere, visibilty is much reduced. It's impossible to reverse our Volvo Estate by looking over your shoulder - you have to use the mirrors.

[pixie374]

Yes, fair enough- I'm just saying it doesn't fill me with confidence about the accuracy of computer-driven cars.