The Self-Driving Revolution | Henry Su | TEDxUAlberta
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2024
- As technology advances at unprecedented rates, the introduction of autonomous vehicles will play a pivotal role in how we function as a society. This talk explores the not so distant future of what an integration of autonomous vehicles could look like. Henry is in his final year of Chemical Engineering at the University of Alberta. He has enriched his university career with extracurricular experiences including launching a rocket at the Andoya Space Centre in Norway, shadowing the CEO of a mid-cap company, and leading the Interdisciplinary Consulting Association. Henry also enjoys hiking, skiing, and playing guitar. An avid follower of TED, Henry loves listening to talks that explore the human condition, particularly Brené Brown’s “The Power of Vulnerability” and Dan Gilbert’s “The Surprising Science of Happiness”. He is also deeply interested in automation and its impact on the future of work. During his summer after graduation, Henry will intern at a self-driving truck start-up in Silicon Valley. After which, he will join global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company for full-time work. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
This is the best speach about self-driving cars so far.
I loooooove cars and driving, but I hate that we as Americans have made ourselves dependent on cars. Car ownership is expensive, and that expense essentially amounts to an infrastructure tax on almost all Americans whether we can afford it or not. Add in the staggering waste of time in traffic; the death toll of crashes; and the massive environmental damage and it's clear that in order to move forward we have to break the dependency.
Are driverless cars really the answer? As a short-term bridge, they have to be -- they will allow us to move around the world as it's constructed with more freedom. But in the long run, over the coming decades, we have to rethink our dependency on moving long distances to accomplish short-term tasks. Planning and architecture need to value proximity.
Personally, I love the freedom of being in a city where I can move, without a car, from place to place and from activity to activity. Whether it's the Paris metro or even a decent bus system we need cities and communities to come back from the car scale and back to the human scale. The "silver bullet" will help but it won't change much until our communities are rethought.
Good talk,cant wait to see driverless cars become the norm,driving sucks!!!
Amen
More trains, trolleys, monorails combined to freeways and the interstates. Wasn't more than a year ago that a young woman in Arizona was killed by one of these that was in an experimental stage with a human occupant attendant in the passenger seat. Was in the news for a day.
I was with you until 9:45 where you brought in the trolley stuff.
OK, everybody: do you have a driver's license? Did you take a written test? Did you take driver's ed in high school?
Did you ever see, on any test, any question about whether you would be willing to drive yourself into a brick wall to avoid hitting a child?
Whether you would choose to hit an ambulance or a school bus?
Did your instructor ever ask you about that?
No? Didn't think so. We don't require this of drivers. We do our best to avoid trolley situations, and assume that when they happen the choice is made randomly.
For self-driving cars, even before the car is rolled out, its code needs to be written. It has to be programmed to do something when faced with a problem. And what should the car do when it faces a situation like the trolley problem? It would be wrong to just flip a coin to decide who should die. A proper decision must be made to decide between the lesser of the two evils. The problem arises from peoples differing views on which is the better option.
E.g. To either kill the driver or to kill a group of 3 children:
If it was a single human driver, it is justifiable to kill the children, because of the necessity to preserve one's own life. It is also justifiable if the driver chooses to sacrifice himself to save the children, because he is saving 3 lives vs his 1 life. Either way, he only had a few seconds to think of what to do, and it would be more of a reaction than a deliberate decision.
However, when its people writing the code for this situation, the code writers are now in a third-person perspective, and they have the time to think and decide what to do. One party could argue that it's better for the driver to die, because its 1 death over 3 deaths, but another could say that the car is to serve its owner and the children should die instead. There can be many other views and its hard to say which is the best one.
@@milolegends42
Is the car better at avoiding trolley situations than a human being is? If it is, then even if the car makes the worst ethical choice in such a situation, it's still better, because it won't be making that choice very often.
Anywho, here's what my car should do: drive into the brick wall. With it's large crumple zone (due to the lack of an ICE under the hood) and airbags and breaking and seat belts, I'll probably survive with nothing worse than a racing heartbeat and an explanation to the insurance company.
Also, this is never going to happen. The odds are tiny that even driving myself I'll run into a situation where the only options are run over children or drive into a wall, and if the car is doing the driving it's even less of a chance.
I'm just wondering what will they do when you save 90% or even 99% of human lives from crashes or accidents which would increase human population. Is this why we are shifting towards populating Mars?
I don't think it will make such a difference because there is not such a significant percentage of people who die in car accidents to influence population growth in this way.
More traffic jam. More CO2. People don't want to share their car and they will commute more.
When the car replaced the horse it did not take jobs away .
we cannot delay technological advances because of that . Besides when some lose, others win and the market evolves this is capitalism
Good video
…i guess….
And what's that gonna cost in CO2., Alle this data and new cars , and who gonna be sitting in the ubers?
The out of Work taxi driver or any of the other millions out of a job ? Whos gonna have money for at 6g phone when everybody lost thier job including the speaker , Cuz no one has any money for ubers to go se , his not that clever talk here 😂