SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The first machine to kill a human entirely on its own initiative was "Likely Caused By Software Set to Ignore Objects On Road" according to a new report on the collision which happened last March:
The car's sensors detected the pedestrian, who was crossing the street with a bicycle, but Uber's software decided it didn't need to react right away. That's a result of how the software was tuned. Like other autonomous vehicle systems, Uber's software has the ability to ignore "false positives," or objects in its path that wouldn't actually be a problem for the vehicle, such as a plastic bag floating over a road. In this case, Uber executives believe the company's system was tuned so that it reacted less to such objects. But the tuning went too far, and the car didn't react fast enough, one of these people said.
Fast enough? She walked across three and a half lanes in what should have been plain view of the car's LIDAR the entire time.
takyon: Also at Reuters. Older report at The Drive.
Previously: Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars After First Fatal Crash of Autonomous Vehicle
Video Released of Fatal Uber - Pedestrian Accident, and More
(Score: 5, Touché) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 08 2018, @04:06PM (3 children)
The hell? This is absolutely not premeditated murder.
The programmers never planned to kill anybody. What's the thing they say in law enforcement, motive, means, and opportunity? What is the programmer's motive to kill people with self-driving cars?
And your comparison of a self-driving car to a killbot is stupid. Yes, a car is a 2-ton weapon. But if I could drop an apartment building on somebody, that would make it a weapon, too, wouldn't it?
You typed a bunch of other words too but were frothing so hard I didn't bother to do more than skim.
Seriously: get some help.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 08 2018, @06:56PM (2 children)
I don't know why the so-called-nerds on sites like this have such a hard time understanding that intent matters to the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08 2018, @11:16PM (1 child)
Because that involves squishy soft science stuff that doesn't easily fit into a switch statement. Throw in some emotional "logic" from the human side of the nerd and you have a recipe for insanity.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09 2018, @03:18AM
Intent = mind reading if the individual has not written or spoken about their intent