Not a lot of human drivers who remain undistracted for any length of time these days. All I see are phones and makeup and touchscreens and eyes everywhere but on the road and immediate surroundings. Would a human driver in place of AI have avoided this accident? I give it 1 chance in 20. Would a human driver in place of AI have panic-pushed the accelerator when they saw a human being thrown at them, thereby causing significantly worse injuries to the pedestrian? I give that 1 in 2.

The pedestrian has about 1000% better odds of surviving this with the AI driver.

A human WAS in the other car and not only FAILED to anticipate the need to stop for the jaywalking pedestrian, but then proceeded to flee the scene after striking the pedestrian with their car.

A human in the next lane is no more likely to be paying any better attention, nor to behave any more logically than the autonomous vehicle, which did exactly as it should in that situation: stop as quickly as possible and if contact cannot be avoided, remain in place pending response from authorities. The AV drove forward just as any driver would. Most humans these days have their noses buried in their phones that they wouldn't notice a woolly mammoth shitting on their windshield. God only knows how much damage your average driver would do to the pedestrian in their panic accelerator punching following the accident.

You're absolutely right. Which is why Michael Scott should have sued Garmin when he drove his car into a fucking lake in Dunder Mifflin Infinity.

In The Office episode "Dunder Mifflin Infinity", Michael Scott has a GPS installed in his car and drives it directly into a lake when it tells him to turn, despite Dwight's numerous warnings that they were about to drive into a lake.

According to this lawsuit, Michael Scott should have sued Garmin. Dumbest shit I've seen all day. These people sued Google because Google has a lot of money and will probably throw some at them to go away. What Google should do is mount a massive defense against the lawsuit and counter sue for legal fees to discourage this type of litigious crap rather than rewarding it with a settlement.

What if, instead of the bridge being washed out, there were a child standing in the middle of it and the vehicle killed the child? Who is responsible for ensuring that the road is free from hazards prior to the vehicle traveling across it? (hint: it sure as shit ain't Rand McNally)

Why did the street view vehicle not drive off the bridge?

Google Maps provides pathways between start and destination, and attempts to optimize said pathways to reduce travel time or gas or whichever options you select. Google Maps does NOT provide any warranty or guarantee that the pathway provide is free of obstacles or hazards.

Put it this way: if that bridge were okay but there were a child standing on it and this driver hit the child, who it at fault? Google Maps for telling the driver "here is a pathway to reach your destination"? Or the driver for failing to observe a driving hazard in the roadway? How about if Google had reports there was a child in the roadway? Would the driver have any fault for hitting the child then?

Google provides a feasible route. The driver is - and always has been - responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is operated in a safe manner, which includes watching for and appropriately reacting to hazards. If the bridge had washed out an hour ago, everyone would agree it was the driver's fault for failing to watch for a road hazard. If it had washed out a week ago, everyone would agree the driver should have been watching the road and taking appropriate action to avoid hazards. But a little more time passes and suddenly the driver is absolved of their responsibility and we find someone else (conveniently someone with deep pockets!) to blame?

Absurd bullshit. Mostly performance outrage by people who just hate Google. Love Google or hate Google; map providers do not take on any responsibility for the safe operation of motor vehicles.

You sure? Assume that current models are accurate and dark energy will expand the universe for infinite time. Further assume that QM is correct (it sure does seem to be) and everything at the quantum level is simply a probably field leaving literally anything possible - even if the vast majority of possibilities are indescribably improbable. Over the course of infinite time, quantum fluctuation will produce every possible configuration of matter and energy in the universe.

Kurzgesagt recently covered this concept here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

> You don't need to register a work, although it helps should there be a dispute.

While true, you're leaving out the part where you have to register it before suing and a timely registration gives a presumption of validity. So if you actually expect to assert it in court, you should be registering it immediately, not the day after you find someone infringing upon it.

> You can churn out 'works', publish them somewhere, then go trolling when your trawling detects a match between a legitimate work and your collection of AI junk.

I mean, this has already happened without AI, see Prenda Law for one example. Thing is, it didn't work very well even with exact copies and the whole publishing them online thing hurt Prenda, since they were fishing for violations.

While someone could maybe do that with something like YouTube's content ID by making AI songs, they're just as likely to get bogus flags themselves if they're just churning out tons of works that all sound like remixes of existing things.

> Photographs are composed by the photographer. They make choices about framing, lighting, focus, where and when to shoot. This requires talent, expertise, and effort. You can't say the same for telling a computer to make a picture.

What you said reads like someone told a photographer "all you have to do is push a button on the camera, that's not creative!" Now imagine explaining why that's wrong to someone who doesn't even know what the f-stop is.

Because there actually is a lot of skill that goes into choosing prompts, selecting results, etc. It's maybe more apparent when techniques are used like in-painting, where you create the actual composition by rearranging elements (e.g. put the fence here, a tree there, etc.) and have the AI fill in the blanks in a consistent style, but what the experts are doing with it has evolved far, far beyond the simple prompts that most people have seen.

A ton of work goes into it when you want works in a consistent style, you want to avoid crazy artifacts, and you want to keep the same characters/elements beyond the generation of a single picture.

MORE taxes. MORE regulation. That'll solve it!

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

It's just an ohmmeter, to be specific.

You also get individuals who suffer from Galactosemia and cannot be breastfed.

We don't redefine the taxonomy class Mammalia to account for the fact that these specific individual members don't conform to the normal definition. Nor do we suddenly pretend that humans aren't mammals because these individuals exist. Yes, you can get people with genetic abnormalities who develop in extremely unusual ways. That doesn't mean that male and female don't exist in nature. That doesn't mean that they don't have well understood, well defined differences. Reality continues to exist no matter how many words get redefined to make a microscopic minority feel slightly better about themselves.

Homo sapien is a bipedal species regardless of the microscopic minority born without two functioning legs. The exception doesn't make or unmake the rule. Let people identify and live as they like, but trying to force others to accept their feelings-based identity as biological reality is never going to work. Males are still male; females are still female. If someone who is biologically male lives a happier life living as a female, more power to them. Girls and women still also maintain a right to feel safe in their own spaces. Trying to force them to just accept a biological male with his penis out in a female locker room is going to create problems. Trying to force them to accept losing in sports to a biological male is going to create problems. Trying to silence them for expressing how they feel about these situations is unconscionable.

Nah, let's instead force all of human civilization to completely alter fundamental aspects of how it's structured including all human communication in order to make this microscopically small minority feel slightly better about themselves.

> The red octagon is just a free expression of my artistic creativity.

You're responsible for foreseeable consequences of your actions. Everyone here is telling you the obvious, foreseeable consequences of this: someone will get hurt in an accident because you did something stupid. It's also foreseeable that one of these "coners" will get someone hurt.

I can only hope that the prosecutor prints out this post to support the proposition that not only was this foreseeable in theory, someone did, in fact, explicitly point this out ahead of time to all of the stupid assholes out there who might later claim "it's not my fault" so that the jury can send them to prison, where they belong.