[Arm-netbook] libre 64-bit risc-v SoC

[Bill Kontos]

On self driving cars atm the driver is required to sit on the driver's
position ready to engage the controls. The moment the driver touches the
gas pedal the car is under his control. So the system is designed in such a
way that the driver is actually in control. In the only accident so far in
the history of Tesla the driver was actually sleeping instead of paying
attention. Also the issue of preventing the AI from optimising out some
edge cases can be solved by carefully planning the tests that the neural
network is trained on, which includes hitting the cycler instead of the
folks in a bus stop or hitting the tree instead of the animal etc. I'm
confident this stuff has already been taken care of, but of course I would
love it if Tesla's code was open source. Although I fail to see how they
could continue making revenue if they open sourced their code( as that is
basically 50% of what they are selling).

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net
> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:45 PM, mike.valk at gmail.com
> <mike.valk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2017-04-28 16:17 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>:
> >>
> >>
> >>  the rest of the article makes a really good point, which has me
> >> deeply concerned now that there are fuckwits out there making
> >> "driverless" cars, toying with people's lives in the process.  you
> >> have *no idea* what unexpected decisions are being made, what has been
> >> "optimised out".
> >
> >
> > That's no different from regular "human" programming.
>
>  it's *massively* different.  a human will follow their training,
> deploy algorithms and have an *understanding* of the code and what it
> does.
>
>  monte-carlo-generated iterative algorthms you *literally* have no
> idea what it does or how it does it.  the only guarantee that you have
> is that *for the set of inputs CURRENTLY tested to date* you have
> "known behaviour".
>
>  but for the cases which you haven't catered for you *literally* have
> no way of knowing how the code is going to react.
>
>  now this sounds very very similar to the human case: yes you would
> expect human-written code to also have to pass test suites.
>
>  but the real difference is highighted with the following question:
> when it comes to previously undiscovered bugs, how the heck are you
> supposed to "fix" bugs that you have *LITERALLY* no idea how the code
> even works?
>
>  and that's what it really boils down to:
>
>  (a) in unanticipated circumstances you have literally no idea what
> the code will do.  it could do something incredibly dangerous.
>
>  (b) in unanticipated circumstances the chances of *fixing* the bug in
> the genetic-derived code are precisely: zero.  the only option is to
> run the algorithm again but with a new set of criteria, generating an
> entirely new algorithm which *again* is in the same (dangerous)
> category.
>
>  l.
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20170428/9e8f4378/attachment.html>