> Think about how difficult it would be for a self-driving car to estimate this.
For sure you're right in the near term. But assuming we achieve super-intelligent AI that we manage to corral into a benevolent relationship with us, perhaps difficulty wouldn't be an issue at that point.
> Even more importantly, how would two self-driving cars cooperate in the event of an inevitable accident? Would we allow them to directly talk to each other, or are they only allowed to interpret each others' trajectories?
Yeah, this is getting good. Assuming we have those super-intelligent machines, those cars should be able to share pretty much all relevant data before a collision. So how could the car determine the greater good option? Is one life equal to another? What if one is rich and one is poor? What if one is the president? How could they even collaborate if they don't share the same basis for valuing human life? Could car companies realistically have diversity in those algorithms, or wouldn't that just lead to lawsuits against cars that were overly aggressive or passive? Nobody wants an unsafe car, so would car companies have to compete in their creation of aggressive algorithms? Or would it be a factor of cost... that you need to pay more for a car that guards its occupants more strongly... leading to more and more aggressive cars as they compete for the crown? Honestly, this line of thinking leads me to think we'll eventually need these values to be dictated and homogenized... requiring a strong central government, and aggressive detection and punishment of aberration. Or else a mad max style zero sum game.
Forgive the digression into fantasyland, I just found the ideas and questions here to be inspiringly interesting.
> Think about how difficult it would be for a self-driving car to estimate this.
For sure you're right in the near term. But assuming we achieve super-intelligent AI that we manage to corral into a benevolent relationship with us, perhaps difficulty wouldn't be an issue at that point.
> Even more importantly, how would two self-driving cars cooperate in the event of an inevitable accident? Would we allow them to directly talk to each other, or are they only allowed to interpret each others' trajectories?
Yeah, this is getting good. Assuming we have those super-intelligent machines, those cars should be able to share pretty much all relevant data before a collision. So how could the car determine the greater good option? Is one life equal to another? What if one is rich and one is poor? What if one is the president? How could they even collaborate if they don't share the same basis for valuing human life? Could car companies realistically have diversity in those algorithms, or wouldn't that just lead to lawsuits against cars that were overly aggressive or passive? Nobody wants an unsafe car, so would car companies have to compete in their creation of aggressive algorithms? Or would it be a factor of cost... that you need to pay more for a car that guards its occupants more strongly... leading to more and more aggressive cars as they compete for the crown? Honestly, this line of thinking leads me to think we'll eventually need these values to be dictated and homogenized... requiring a strong central government, and aggressive detection and punishment of aberration. Or else a mad max style zero sum game.
Forgive the digression into fantasyland, I just found the ideas and questions here to be inspiringly interesting.