Person crosses street when they shouldn’t.
Car lightly taps them and stops.
Person is not injured.
Person is stupid.
I think regulation is important, but this isn’t news.
Baidu: Driverless Car Hits Jaywalker in China
Submitted 4 months ago by ooli@lemmy.world to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://time.com/6996299/driverless-car-hit-pedestrian-china-baidu-ai/
Comments
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 months ago
stupidcasey@lemmy.world 1 month ago
TBF, the car is stupid to, not because of this just in general AI is stupid, if it was a human in the car we would just say he was angry but with AI we know it wasn’t angry and made a mistake, it happened to catch the mistake before it killed somebody but that mistake is in the programming of every single car of that type in the world, letting of a small problem like this is equal to saying it’s legal, since it will be a nation wide bug that is allowed.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
Yeah. The person was on ‘FA’ and now (barely) on ‘FO’.
What happened to looking both ways and being wary of the things that could crush you?
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
What do those letters mean?
janNatan@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
Whether or not to run over the pedestrian is a pretty complex situation.
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
what was the social credit score of the pedestrian?
Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 4 months ago
Right?
I saw “in a complex situation” and thought “what’s complex? Person in road = stop”
14th_cylon@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Person in road = stop”
if only read life would be as easy as 4 word soundbite.
In this week’s Science magazine, a group of computer scientists and psychologists explain how they conducted six online surveys of United States residents last year between June and November that asked people how they believed autonomous vehicles should behave. The researchers found that respondents generally thought self-driving cars should be programmed to make decisions for the greatest good.
Sort of. Through a series of quizzes that present unpalatable options that amount to saving or sacrificing yourself — and the lives of fellow passengers who may be family members — to spare others, the researchers, not surprisingly, found that people would rather stay alive.
nytimes.com/…/should-your-driverless-car-hit-a-pe…
same link: archive.is/osWB7
you can also check:
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
To be fair, you have to have a pretty high IQ to run over a pedestrian
GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Just a lil ml posting
Auli@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
Isn’t China the place where they make sure your dead when they hit you? Backing up running over you multiple times.
systemglitch@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s not that bad anymore.
exanime@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Why is social media options any factor in this discussion?
Evotech@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s beneficial to know what the general public thinks about issues?
Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
I don’t think “posts on social media” is a good indicator for what the public thinks anymore, if ever. The amount and reach of bot or bought accounts are disturbingly high.
Maalus@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Social media aren’t “the general public”
exanime@lemmy.world 4 months ago
With the terrible demographic distribution, the absolute sewage social media is and the bots that make more than half the content. Of you want to know what the general public thinks, you could not chose any worse source
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 months ago
…they asked on social media.
Occhioverde@feddit.it 4 months ago
Reading the comments I got the impression that most people didn’t actually read the article, which says that a woman was barely touched and not injured by a self-driving car while crossing the street with a red light.
There barely is “news” here, as the car correctly halted as soon as possible after noticing the pedestrian unforeseeable move, so let alone sides to take.
I am perfectly aware that self-driving technology still has numerous problems corroborated by the incidents reported from time to time, but if anything this article seems a proof that these cars will at least not crush to death the first pedestrian that does a funky move.
hark@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Why read the article when I can repeat lies and make tired jokes about social credit scores because China bad?
YeetPics@mander.xyz 4 months ago
The car has perfect social credit, the ‘human’ failed to yield at a crosswalk once in 2003.
You do the math, idiotic westerners suck at my superior inverse-logic.
hakase@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
How does “driverless cars hitting people is so insanely rare that a single instance of it immediately becomes international news” at all signify “boring dystopia”? If anything we should be ecstatic that the technology to eliminate the vast majority of car deaths is so close and seems to be working so well.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of ridiculously, insanely amazing.
Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Yeah that was my thought too… driverless cars don’t need to never fuck up, they need to fuck up less than humans do. And we fuck up a LOT.
meowMix2525@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I’d argue they need to fuck up less than the alternative means of transport that we could be transitioning to if we weren’t so dead-set on being car dependent. So dead-set, in fact, that we are allowing ourselves to be made complacent by billion-dollar companies that peddle entirely new technology to excuse the death and destruction to our environment and social fabric that they’ve wrought upon us and continue to perpetuate, instead of us demanding the old, safer, more affordable, but less profitable tech that our country sold out to those same monied interests for them to dismantle.
hakase@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Exactly. As early as the technology still is, it seems like it’s already orders of magnitude better than human drivers.
I guess the arbitrary/unfeeling impression of driverless car deaths bothers people more than the “it was just an accident” impression of human-caused deaths. Personally, as long as driverless car deaths are significantly rarer than human-caused deaths (and it already seems like they are much, much rarer), I’d rather take the lower chance of dying in a car accident, but that’s just me.
YeetPics@mander.xyz 4 months ago
I think the hook of the story is people backing the not alive and not conscious vehicle instead of the injured, alive and conscious human.
I’m all for automating transportation, but if that convenience outweighs empathy we’re in for a real sad century.
Aphelion@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I see you’re not familiar with the trend of autonomous vehicles hitting pedestrians and parked cars. They’ve been completely banned from San Francisco after many, many incidents. So far their track is inferior to humans (see Tesla Autopilot, Waymo, and Cruise), so you don’t need to worry about perfect.
UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
As someone who was literally just in San Fran, the driverless cars are not only a thing, but they’re booked out days in advance so idk where you’re getting your info from
hakase@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
In December, Waymo safety data—based on 7.1 million miles of driverless operations—showed that human drivers are four to seven times more likely to cause injuries than Waymo cars.
From your first article.
Cruise, which is a subsidiary of General Motors, says that its safety record “over five million miles” is better in comparison to human drivers.
From your second.
Your third article doesn’t provide any numbers, but it’s not about fully autonomous vehicles anyway.
In short, if you’re going to claim that their track record is actually worse than humans, you need to provide some actual evidence.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
China has a long history of siding with vehicles running people over.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 months ago
👏👏👏👏👏
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
Not sure if you’re referring to tianmen or the fun Chinese practice of double tap
And009@reddthat.com 4 months ago
This never happened