Monday, November 02, 2015
Another flank
Keeping track of another flank in the Deep State's total war. Self-driving cars.
Lots of "cute" news about Google tuning its algorithm to avoid Halloween-costumed kids.
"Anyone who has been around children knows that the movements of the little ones can be quite unpredictable, they may suddenly run down a sidewalk or dart across the road..."
I noted a week ago:
Autonomous cars can't distinguish all the characteristics of Unpersons, but they can detect two reliable shibboleths of Negative Externalities. (1) Pedestrians who are NOT carrying an iPhone are uncool. Non-iPhoners are either old, Luddite, or strictly religious. All perfectly uncool, all perfectly killworthy. (2) Pedestrians who move slowly and irregularly are uncool. Old and/or disabled. Killing the uncool is called ETHICS. See Peter Singer for more details.Toldja so. (Code that avoids a shibboleth can be used equally well to aim TOWARD the shibboleth. Just change the sign on a vector.) = = = = = A separate "news" item about GoogCars "finds" that GoogCars have 5 times more accidents per mile than human-driven cars, but the GoogCars are "never at fault". See if you can spot the problem here:
The study, conducted by Schoettle and Michael Sivak, analyzed records from three self-driving vehicle programs: Google, Delphi and Audi. Based on narratives supplied in the crash descriptions for the crashes occurring in autonomous mode, the self-driving vehicles do not appear to be at fault in any of the crashes that have occurred to date.Narratives supplied. In legalistic terms, the "study" is trusting the defendant's testimony. Normal academic or insurance industry studies of accidents are far more careful to find ACTUAL FUCKING FACTS, but we don't need any steenkin FACTS when the defendants are COOOOOOOOL.
Labels: 20th century Dark Age, Ethics
¶ 2:29 AM
