"Hello, Department of Redundancy Department. Greetings"
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:38 pm
A place to discuss the world of Wapsi Square
https://forum.wapsisquare.com/
Already done that, in current and past Jarrod Jewelry ads.....ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Well, the article itself is a bit more sobering. How long until our cars say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that..."
It is, but I'm not a fan of these slippery-slope arguments. They make for good thought experiments, but I'm pretty sure cars won't ever be programmed to decide to turn right just because they don't want to turn left.ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Well, the article itself is a bit more sobering. How long until our cars say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that..."
I'm not worried about intentional programming so much as buggy code or faulty sensors. Imagine, for example, if the OS for your car was written by Microsoft, and having a BSoD at highway speeds...MerchManDan wrote:It is, but I'm not a fan of these slippery-slope arguments. They make for good thought experiments, but I'm pretty sure cars won't ever be programmed to decide to turn right just because they don't want to turn left.ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Well, the article itself is a bit more sobering. How long until our cars say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that..."
Funny enough to think of, but actually VERY dangerous! The Atlantic Airbus crash in 2009 is one example. The aircraft had a speed sensor fail at altitude, and the co-pilot responded the the alarm by pulling Back on the stick (side mounted control, not the big kind) in response to an apparent over-speed. From there, the aircraft stalled at 30,000 feet, and eventually fluttered it's way down to a mere 60 knots, falling at just near stall speed. The programming turned off the stall alarm, thinking it was about to land, and automatically kept the aircraft reasonably centered and level. The senior pilot was pushing Forward on the stick (not seeing the co-pilot's stick position), trying to get the nose down and speed back up, but the aircraft had already decided it was landing (thanks to the co-pilot's stick position) and ignored him. Result? Splat.ShneekeyTheLost wrote:I'm not worried about intentional programming so much as buggy code or faulty sensors. Imagine, for example, if the OS for your car was written by Microsoft, and having a BSoD at highway speeds...MerchManDan wrote:It is, but I'm not a fan of these slippery-slope arguments. They make for good thought experiments, but I'm pretty sure cars won't ever be programmed to decide to turn right just because they don't want to turn left.ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Well, the article itself is a bit more sobering. How long until our cars say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that..."
nut just that, but if the map hasn't been updated? Then you're flying through a construction site, or off the road when it thinks you're on.ShneekeyTheLost wrote:I'm not worried about intentional programming so much as buggy code or faulty sensors. Imagine, for example, if the OS for your car was written by Microsoft, and having a BSoD at highway speeds...MerchManDan wrote:It is, but I'm not a fan of these slippery-slope arguments. They make for good thought experiments, but I'm pretty sure cars won't ever be programmed to decide to turn right just because they don't want to turn left.ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Well, the article itself is a bit more sobering. How long until our cars say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that..."