driverless cars

Talk about things that are not necessarily related to music or the guitar.
User avatar
eno
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by eno » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:48 pm

Andrew Pohlman wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:26 pm
I just now saw this post, and that, my friend, is a classic Turing test question. And a great way to show that humans can answer even if they have no idea what the answer is. :D

"The Turing test, developed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human." from Wikipedia - disambiguation.
Turing invented his test when there was no Google. Nowadays AI + Google combination would make it "almost" indistinguishable from a human :D and so now the Turing test becomes Chalmers "philosophical zombie" test.
Paulino Bernabe 'India' 2001
Takamine C136S 1976
Masaru Kohno No.6 1967

User avatar
Denian Arcoleo
Composer
Posts: 6324
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Somerset, England

Re: driverless cars

Post by Denian Arcoleo » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:52 pm

Andrew Pohlman wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:26 pm
A really bad AI, in a car or otherwise, would give a concrete answer like, "We are here because this location is exactly where I am driving us." A really good AI would be able to answer as any confused human would, "The answer would involve personal philosophy. Why do think we are here?"
Does that mean that when the AI gets really good it will be just as likely to cause a crash as a human? :lol:

Pat Dodson
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:32 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: driverless cars

Post by Pat Dodson » Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:46 pm

Thank you Andrew; I had hoped someone would respond to the connection. :)

The Philosophical Zombie argument is new to me (thank you @eno) and, the hour being late, I shall have to grapple with that again tomorrow as Wiki’s account has left me almost a zombie myself. :?

Pat Dodson
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:32 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: driverless cars

Post by Pat Dodson » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:33 pm

Denian Arcoleo wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:52 pm
Andrew Pohlman wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:26 pm
A really bad AI, in a car or otherwise, would give a concrete answer like, "We are here because this location is exactly where I am driving us." A really good AI would be able to answer as any confused human would, "The answer would involve personal philosophy. Why do think we are here?"
Does that mean that when the AI gets really good it will be just as likely to cause a crash as a human? :lol:
:lol:

The Moral Machine study got folk very agitated about how engineers and manufacturers might show their prejudices in the way they programme the AI to make decisions in crash choice situations.

However a recent paper, ‘Doubting Driverless Dilemmas’ by
Julian De Freitas, Sam E. Anthony and George Alvarez suggests use of Trolley Problem and Moral Machine approaches to driverless AI development is flawed as real traffic accidents rarely pose such sociological dilemmas and the options for mitigating harm are more varied. Instead, they suggest, it will be better to simply focus on optimising crash avoidance and on minimising harm.

PeteJ
Posts: 1328
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: driverless cars

Post by PeteJ » Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:20 am

Pat Dodson wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:46 pm
The Philosophical Zombie argument is new to me (thank you @eno) and, the hour being late, I shall have to grapple with that again tomorrow as Wiki’s account has left me almost a zombie myself. :?
My advice would be that this is a rabbit-hole best avoided. the Turing test is not a test for consciousness and passing it would not be enough to establish its presence. Meanwhile the zombie argument is so confused that it generates a zillion words a week and the arguments never end.

Best to just notice the incoherence of the idea of zombies (would zombies write books about consciousness?) and the general rejection of the Turing test as a test of consciousness.There is no foolproof test for consciousness since all we can observe is behaviour, and machine are close to passing the Turing test now while showing no signs of it.

Andrew Pohlman
Posts: 1481
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: driverless cars

Post by Andrew Pohlman » Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:43 pm

Meanwhile, Elon Musk has stated yesterday that Tesla will be producing fully autonomous vehicles by 2020. Beyond that prediction, he also said some fundamental stuff related to this broader discussion:
"The former is 'absolutely fundamental,' as relying on CO2-emitting engines that run on fossil fuels represents an objectively real 'fundamental risk to humanity'."
**********AND**********
"But also very important is autonomy,” he said, commenting that it is “very important to save millions of lives, tens of millions of serious injuries, and give people their time back so they don’t have to drive.”

Elon's former statement is existential. Elon's latter implies two things, if my interpretation is on the mark:
1) Humans are terrible drivers and AI can do it better.
2) Humans have far better ways to spend their time than driving.

I can agree with all that, assuming autonomous vehicles are all electric. But it is quite clear that some individuals in this thread prefer to drive as a choice, regardless of the availability or quality of self driving vehicles. Assuming self driving vehicles become the norm as time goes on, the cost of that choice may become prohibitive.
2013 Rodriguez FF Sabicas blanco
2015 Trevor Gore custom Neoclassical
- redwood top, Palo dorado B+Ss.

PeteJ
Posts: 1328
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: driverless cars

Post by PeteJ » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:26 pm

All of it ignores the costs and disbenefits of the technology. Musk is naturally a propagandist.

User avatar
guitarrista
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: driverless cars

Post by guitarrista » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:44 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:26 pm
All of it ignores the costs and disbenefits of the technology. Musk is naturally a propagandist.
Yup. He also sometimes promises things on a ever-shifting timeline, the fully-autonomous vehicle being one of them.
Konstantin
--
1982 Anselmo Solar Gonzalez

User avatar
Marko1976
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:30 pm

Re: driverless cars

Post by Marko1976 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:38 pm

Playerless guitars?


User avatar
eno
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by eno » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:57 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:20 am
My advice would be that this is a rabbit-hole best avoided. the Turing test is not a test for consciousness and passing it would not be enough to establish its presence. Meanwhile the zombie argument is so confused that it generates a zillion words a week and the arguments never end.

Best to just notice the incoherence of the idea of zombies (would zombies write books about consciousness?) and the general rejection of the Turing test as a test of consciousness. There is no foolproof test for consciousness since all we can observe is behaviour, and machine are close to passing the Turing test now while showing no signs of it.
True, I don't know if there are any coherent ideas in the filed of consciousness studies. The purpose of those zombie, colorblind Mary and other arguments were rather to stimulate peoples thinking and make them at least acknowledge the existence of the problem. What I was implying was that if AI becomes behaviorally indistinguishable from humans we would naturally start wondering if it is also conscious, and there would be no way to disprove it. If Chalmers dualistic view is true then it actually would be conscious.

May be it's just me but no matter what I'm thinking about I always end up being puzzled again by those two unapproachable/unanswerable questions: why the world exists and why there is a conscious experience of it. I know, it's a spectrum symptom ... :D
Paulino Bernabe 'India' 2001
Takamine C136S 1976
Masaru Kohno No.6 1967

PeteJ
Posts: 1328
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: driverless cars

Post by PeteJ » Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:11 am

eno wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:57 pm
True, I don't know if there are any coherent ideas in the field of consciousness studies.
If you mean 'scientific' consciousness studies then I'd agree that coherent ideas are thin on the ground. The problem is that to belong in this field and maintain ones respectability one has to refuse to learn anything about what is said by the people who actually study consciousness. As a consequence modern philosophy of mind is poorly informed and about twenty centuries behind the times. It's a somewhat weird situation.

User avatar
eno
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by eno » Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:55 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:11 am
eno wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:57 pm
True, I don't know if there are any coherent ideas in the field of consciousness studies.
If you mean 'scientific' consciousness studies then I'd agree that coherent ideas are thin on the ground. The problem is that to belong in this field and maintain ones respectability one has to refuse to learn anything about what is said by the people who actually study consciousness. As a consequence modern philosophy of mind is poorly informed and about twenty centuries behind the times. It's a somewhat weird situation.
Well, there are no coherent ideas in the philosophy of consciousness either. And true, there is a disconnect and the situation is weird because philosophers tend to ignore the science studies concerned with "the easy problem of consciousness" and scientist do the opposite - tend to ignore "the hard problem of consciousness" and all philosophical mumble behind it (because, being experimentally non-verifiable or falsifiable, it's currently totally beyond the grasp of the modern science). As a result, philosophy is about twenty centuries behind the science of mind and the science is about twenty centuries apart form solving the hard problem of consciousness.
Paulino Bernabe 'India' 2001
Takamine C136S 1976
Masaru Kohno No.6 1967

PeteJ
Posts: 1328
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: driverless cars

Post by PeteJ » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:51 am

eno wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:55 pm
Well, there are no coherent ideas in the philosophy of consciousness either. And true, there is a disconnect and the situation is weird because philosophers tend to ignore the science studies concerned with "the easy problem of consciousness" and scientist do the opposite - tend to ignore "the hard problem of consciousness" and all philosophical mumble behind it (because, being experimentally non-verifiable or falsifiable, it's currently totally beyond the grasp of the modern science). As a result, philosophy is about twenty centuries behind the science of mind and the science is about twenty centuries apart form solving the hard problem of consciousness.
This seems a fairly accurate summary of the situation. The natural sciences have nothing to say about consciousness and the philosophy department is where it was when Plato created it. Meanwhile there is no 'problem of consciousness' in the perennial tradition and philosophy was sorted out centuries ago, but philosophers of mind don't study it. The whole thing is a ridiculous mess.

User avatar
eno
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Boston, USA

Re: driverless cars

Post by eno » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:05 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:51 am
Meanwhile there is no 'problem of consciousness' in the perennial tradition and philosophy was sorted out centuries ago, but philosophers of mind don't study it.
Sorry, I didn't get it, what did you mean by saying that?
Paulino Bernabe 'India' 2001
Takamine C136S 1976
Masaru Kohno No.6 1967

josanmendoza
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: CDMX

Re: driverless cars

Post by josanmendoza » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:57 pm

Main reason I would buy a driverless car is because I hate the lost time while you drive. I would really appreciate the possibility of be doing other productive things. That is why I love the public transport, I can enjoy listening to music, reading, playing, talking, texting, watching a movie, etc and not losing my time behind a steering wheel. 🤷🏻‍♂️
I am a hobby musician [who sometimes has been paid] and a Spanish teacher. If you are interested into learning that language please feel free to send me a message and we could do something.

Return to “The Café”