Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14898182
Bullshit. The woman was illegally crossing the street at a busy intersection at night. She was pushing a rusty old bike. She had her first kid at 15 and has been arrested at least once judging by her mug shot. Guessin' she was drunk, high or both. An autonomous car can't stop any faster than a regular car. The laws of physics still apply. You can bet everything is well documented with multiple cameras and recording devices in the car.
#14898198
Suntzu wrote:Bullshit. The woman was illegally crossing the street at a busy intersection at night. She was pushing a rusty old bike. She had her first kid at 15 and has been arrested at least once judging by her mug shot. Guessin' she was drunk, high or both. An autonomous car can't stop any faster than a regular car. The laws of physics still apply. You can bet everything is well documented with multiple cameras and recording devices in the car.
Wow there, Mr. angry pants... Calm down.


When the company first began testing its self-driving cars in California in 2016,the vehicles were caught running red lights, leading to a high-profile dispute between state regulators and the San Francisco-based corporation.

In another recent case,a Tesla car rear-ended a fire truck on a freeway,with the driver again telling the authorities the car was in autopilot mode at the time of the collision.


“The robot cars cannot accurately predict human behavior, and the real problem comes in the interaction between humans and the robot vehicles,” said Simpson, whose advocacy group called for a national moratorium on autonomous car testing in the wake of the deadly collision.

“It may be problematic for the industry, because one of their central arguments for the value of the technology is that it is superior to human drivers,” said Bennett, adding that autonomous cars should be able to detect pedestrians and avoid hitting them, even if they aren’t in crosswalks:“Every day, pedestrians in cities around the world step outside of the crosswalk.”

Remember this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rry-potter

According to Tesla’s account of the crash, the car’s sensor system, against a bright spring sky, failed to distinguish a large white 18-wheel truck and trailer crossing the highway.In a blogpost, Tesla said the self-driving car attempted to drive full speed under the trailer “with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S”.

Zionist Nationalist wrote:I dont think in 100 years from now anyone will be driving a car
Fixed :)
#14898205
It's early days yet and the technology is developing very fast, so I don't think this is a Hindenberg moment really. Humans glitch out and have accidents too, some people even have "accidents" on purpose (whilst yelling "Alu Snackbar!"). I don't think machine drivers necessarily have to have a perfect safety record, they just have to have a just as good or better safety record than humans to have a place on the road.
#14898218
adding that autonomous cars should be able to detect pedestrians and avoid hitting them, even if they aren’t in crosswalks:“Every day, pedestrians in cities around the world step outside of the crosswalk.”


It seems like they are saying the cars can only detect people in crosswalks?

That's pretty fucked if they actually rely on crosswalks to detect people in the road.
#14898221
To be fair the main issue is probably that the car's computer has to detect, process, and and slow down to avoid unexpected people which makes it slower to react than the crosswalk which the computer should be expecting to pop up. It's basically the same sort of reaction time issue that a human driver would have with an unexpected pedestrian crossing.

The computer ought to be faster, truthfully, but it's not as significant a problem when compared to human drivers as it is in our imagination where we expect these systems to be infallible.

We have already accepted as a society an immense amount of damage, suffering, and death as a result of human drivers. I'm honestly surprised about how much people seem to suddenly care about it when it's a computer.
#14898227
Yeah, lets kill all people crossing a street when the Ueber-car is in sight. The Ueber-Mensch is out. That way the technology will be victorious. No more silly old women tottering around. Nothing must stop progress. And bicycles ought to be banned anyways. I'm sure the Donald will get rid of all these nuisances in due time. They are like junkies. To be shot on sight! :knife:
#14898233
mikema63 wrote:To be fair the main issue is probably that the car's computer has to detect, process, and and slow down to avoid unexpected people which makes it slower to react than the crosswalk which the computer should be expecting to pop up. It's basically the same sort of reaction time issue that a human driver would have with an unexpected pedestrian crossing.

The computer ought to be faster, truthfully, but it's not as significant a problem when compared to human drivers as it is in our imagination where we expect these systems to be infallible.

We have already accepted as a society an immense amount of damage, suffering, and death as a result of human drivers. I'm honestly surprised about how much people seem to suddenly care about it when it's a computer.

It's unproved prototype technology, which has immensely less trials than human drivers. This one instance likely is enough to sway the statistics to where driverless cars are statistically much more dangerous to pedestrians than human drivers, based merely on the extant statistical data.
#14898236
Sure, possibly, and I'm not arguing against continuing to test and refine the technology. I just wanted to throw in the point that there is an inherent already existing death rate from human drivers and that Self driving cars are not (and realistically can never be) infallible and perfectly prevent accident, injury, and death.
#14898415
I think we should hold self-driving cars to a higher standard than "slightly less deadly than a human". Car and lorry manufacturers already test their their vehicles on private tracks and it's ridiculous that Uber gets to endanger the public because it is too cheap to use a test track.
#14898416
Not only should driverless cars be held to an unhumanly high standard, but the standard should keep going up as technology improves.

And humans should be held to the same high standards.

Yes, I am arguing for far less vehicles on the roads, and the ones that are there will be very safe.
#14898462
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not only should driverless cars be held to an unhumanly high standard, but the standard should keep going up as technology improves.


That’s a valid argument

For example, unmanned space flight can operate with a 95% success rate, but for manned space flight we need 99.99..%. However, as we try to come close to 100%, the cost becomes exorbitant. That is why 80 years after we started launcher development we still don’t have commercial manned space flight.

And humans should be held to the same high standards.


Humans haven’t been able to increase their moral standards at the same pace as the progress in technology. Humans using WMDs to kill each other today essentially have the same moral standards as humans killing each other with swords in the past.

Moreover, that technology enslaves only becomes apparent when it is too late, just like a junkie only realizes his addiction when he is already addicted. Unlike for junkies, there is no rehab for humanity. What’s done cannot be undone.

For example, while the automobile increased the comfort of travel, it also made us less free. We can’t just roam the countryside like we do on foot. We have to keep to the right side of the road. We need to observe innumerable rules and traffics signs, we need to pay car taxes, insurance, toll roads, and spend a substantial part of our life in salary slavery to pay for the car and its associated costs. In addition to all the hours we spend in the car, we have thus sacrificed much of our life to gain comfort and speed.

Driver-less cars will become safe because pedestrians will be kept off the road, like is the case for high ways today.

In any case, you can enter that digital brave new world without me. I’ll post a sign at the entrance to my valley saying “no Uber here!” I won’t allow my toads and hedgehogs to be slaughtered by Uber.
#14899182
layman wrote:How many people die from human error?
Technology is an extension of us, so technically there's only human error. We program the computers, but somehow there's a cognitive disconnect, short-circuiting our reflection process. People hear a story like this one and they immediately say "at least the machine is safer than a human driver," as if these machines are self-contained systems. See, when a machine makes a mistake, it's still human error. We're responsible for these machines.

Atlantis wrote:Humans haven’t been able to increase their moral standards at the same pace as the progress in technology. Humans using WMDs to kill each other today essentially have the same moral standards as humans killing each other with swords in the past.
Yes, and this may be due to a cognitive bias, we're always looking for ways to blame others for the things that we do to ourselves. Blame is escapism. AS long as someone else is building a weapon of mass destruction, we feel as if we need to build one too. See, it's collective insanity based on a personal delusion that we're not fundamentally interconnected mentally, emotionally, physically, etc.

Moreover, that technology enslaves only becomes apparent when it is too late, just like a junkie only realizes his addiction when he is already addicted. Unlike for junkies, there is no rehab for humanity. What’s done cannot be undone.
Yes, here is a verse from Seismoluminesence:

Technology devalues life, intruding ones rights
Contaminating the cost, excluding the price
Removing insight from the human plight
Your historians are doomed to rewrite, click the button if you like
Under the pale moonlight, weapons of unknown types
Marduk, Tarnush, Kingu and Heru fight


For example, while the automobile increased the comfort of travel, it also made us less free.

The medium is the message (massage, mass-age), because technology reorganizes the environment and therefore reshapes the figures (people, biological organisms) participating in the environment (ground, society). Interplay of the figure-ground dialectic- The figure informs the ground and the ground informs the figure. When you drop a new technology into our environment it reroutes human behavior. If you study media ecology, the car as a technology has many side-effects. Media ecology studies the TRANSFORMATION of information, instead of the transportation of information. The printing press, automobile, computer- transport information, but the transportation process transforms the information because new patterns of information emerge during the transportation process and create new environments for us to live in.
#14899274
RhetoricThug wrote:AS long as someone else is building a weapon of mass destruction, we feel as if we need to build one too.

It's not even that. We create a narrative according to which the other wants to destroy us. Therefore, we need to preempt that by destroying the other first. The Americans knew by 1942 that the Nazis didn't develop the atomic bomb, yet they pursued the Manhattan program with all their force. In their simplistic way, they believed that if the US had at least twice the military power of the rest of the world together, America would be able to impose eternal peace - the pax-Americana. What delusion!

We can only achieve peace by peaceful coexistence as in the EU. There is no other way. Imperialism is a dead end.

The basic problem is not that we blame each other. The basic problem is greed and ignorance - embodied in the present US president like in nobody else.

The greed of wanting to profit at the expense of others in the simplistic view of the world as a zero-sum game. Ignorance of the interrelatedness of all things: your loss is not my gain, we both lose. Your gain is my gain, we both win.
#14899284
Atlantis wrote:It's not even that. We create a narrative according to which the other wants to destroy us. Therefore, we need to preempt that by destroying the other first.
Yes, that's it. We're collectively insane. Collectively, we behave like paranoid schizophrenics. We draw unfounded invisible lines in the name of organization, when in reality it's causing disorganization. We speak different languages instead of one. We're unable to learn from our past. And we are a danger to ourselves and others. :lol:
The Americans knew by 1942 that the Nazis didn't develop the atomic bomb, yet they pursued the Manhattan program with all their force. In their simplistic way, they believed that if the US had at least twice the military power of the rest of the world together, America would be able to impose eternal peace - the pax-Americana. What delusion!
Yes, like I said elsewhere: Any individual pretending to be detached from the whole of BEING is a delusional person. In this case, a delusional person's sanity creates collective insanity. Same goes for any group.

We can only achieve peace by peaceful coexistence as in the EU. There is no other way. Imperialism is a dead end.
Yes, binary logic is dead. We no longer need AvsB to produce C. We can accomplish more together. We have ONE mind, not 7-8 billion minds. Bye-bye binary paradigm!

The basic problem is not that we blame each other. The basic problem is greed and ignorance - embodied in the present US president like in nobody else.
Is a US president responsible for (y)our greed and ignorance? What drives greed and ignorance? We need to address it at the source. :)

The greed of wanting to profit at the expense of others in the simplistic view of the world as a zero-sum game. Ignorance of the interrelatedness of all things: your loss is not my gain, we both lose. Your gain is my gain, we both win.
Yes, indeed.

One more thing I'd like to add: Humanity must unite 'organically,' and we must resist being coerced or hood-winked into a form artificial unity brought to us through technology. I think John Lennon said something like "We don't need flags, badges, or stamps to say we're together folks... We're together if we're together." That's what I'm saying about technology. We don't need to merge with a machine to be together folks, we're together if we're together. We must come together first, then pursue our technology.

-One Love
#14899326
RhetoricThug wrote:Humanity must unite 'organically,' and we must resist being coerced or hood-winked into a form artificial unity brought to us through technology.


I very much agree. I remember once a discussion in a Buddhist forum in which a "Buddhist" said he welcomed the advent of modernity. He wanted artificial food without living input in the form of organic matter, a sanitized food production in which animals didn't have to suffer because they have been replaced by synthetic fertilizers and machines. He didn't want to know about farming and the fact that a wide range of toxic chemicals is needed to destroy all lifeforms, animal, plant, fungi, etc., in order to grow the cash-crop by synthetic means. He welcomed denatured food with chemical additives produced according to Vegan ideology in which deficiencies like B12 was complemented by additives. He wanted a sanitized environment and human body in which all bacteria have been killed by a vast array of chemicals. He didn't want to know about the fact that the human body consists to a large extend of bacteria and other microorganisms. We couldn't survive a single moment without them.

How can it be that people who follow one of the most advanced and beautiful thinking humans have produced go wrong to such an extend? Is it that the great Yin will turn into the great Yang, that the great good is close to the great evil? Is it the absolute equilibrium at the dead point of the chaos pendulum that can go either way, depending on how the forces of the whole universe will combine to let it fall left or right?

At that absolute equilibrium we can no longer make any judgement, neither left nor right. The moment we make a judgement the world is frozen into one reality excluding innumerable potentialities.

Anyways, for a "Buddhist" to want to sacrifice all living beings for a moment of peace of mind or for saving an insect he might inadvertently tread on is totally sick. It is a symptom of the sickness of our age.

But we do need our pursuit of technology. There is no way around that, just like we can't stop breathing. That pursuit was started long before the first human made stone tools. Today, we must go on like a runner must put one foot in front of the other to keep from falling. That is our motion and distinguishes us from plants which are fixed at a location and can only go places by expanding. Like we keep the balance of the pendulum, we keep the balance of the body in running and we keep the balance of technology by moving forward. We have to invent better and "greener" technology to get rid of the old and dirty technology. The potential for innovation is the only growth industry on this planet that is unlimited.

The trouble is that science doesn't have ethics to serve as guideline for what is right and wrong. Is it right to develop WMDs for the empire by using a false narrative? Is it right to blindly fiddle with the genetic code of life in the name of corporate profit? Is it right to develop AI weapons for the subversion of democracy in the service of neocon ideology?

Who can put a check on all these obvious abuses?

Only a true democracy that includes the interests of all and not just the interest of the empire. Those who believe that imperialism is without alternative are wrong. Imperialism is a dead end because it is invariably destructive. It cannot reach equilibrium.

Jianzhi Sengcan, 6th century China:
毫釐有差 天地懸隔
Even with a hair's breadth of difference,
heaven and earth are rent asunder.
Last edited by Atlantis on 24 Mar 2018 08:57, edited 1 time in total.

I was addressing your previous errors, which were[…]

What made you think looking up videos of black pe[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

John it's Corbyn's fault. The general consensus […]

The Irishman...

No, absolutely unequivocally untrue this statemen[…]