| I don't really see how philosophy is all that relevant. Maybe somewhat relevant, but AIs are not brains. In fact we use computers specifically because they aren't brains, for things that would be expensive What's the track record in general like for "philosophy-driven development"? It has big marketing success like Apple, and Chuck Moore's FORTH chips have interesting low power capabilities, but 99% of the world seems to run on tech that's built using the usual tech thought process. Lots of cars can automatically stop to prevent a collision, using what's probably just a fancy version of if(goingToCrash){dont()}, based on LIDAR, Radar, and ultrasound. I usually hear nothing but praise from safety researchers. Unless there's some coverup I'm not aware of, it seems like It Works. Why could the Tesla in the mentioned accident not do that? Why does it need to recognize a person? It just needs to know that it's bad to hit stuff that reflects radar. Sure, maybe a prankster could toss some corner reflectors on the road and jam up traffic or something, but that's the price of safety, and AI has adversarial inputs too. Just add some redundant sensor types to make it harder or a manual override. Choosing to rely on brain-like AI is philosophy driven development, assuming the brain is always best at every task. Instead, we can change the task itself. Not "drive a car as a human would" but "Transport passengers with as close to zero risk as we can, at all cost". AFAIK every other industry with that goal is using deterministic code on the level of GOFAI or below, with the exception of a very few deep learning systems to detect certain things like fire, probably combined with deterministic code as a fallback. AI only needs to be like 95% reliable. With some of the advanced routing stuff they could do, weird stuff like cars randomly stopping for 10s isn't going to bother anyone. Even an occasional missed speed limit sign or running a red light or not seeing lane markings shouldn't matter, if there is trusted deterministic code that makes sure it never hits anything. Current self driving cars are making progress. What's actually missing besides the extreme level of safety people expect? They seem to be slowly getting better at working in varied environments and the like. When was the last time your toaster tried to kill you? Are you worried autopilot will land a plane on your house? Why are we not aiming for that level of reliability, instead of emulating humans that currently have accidents all the time? Rule based systems don't usually fail catastrophically when there is no rule, as long as they are able to detect that there is no rule. Then they just safely shut down. Current cars already fail in various mechanical ways. The important thing is making sure nobody dies, not guessing whether something is a bike or a dumpster. All you need to know is it's a thing to not hit. |