Tech
Trolley problems: AI hype has roared ahead of self-driving cars

Trolley problems: AI hype has roared ahead of self-driving cars

Hands off the wheel

It’s not unreasonable to have expected some major breakthroughs in self-driving cars (autonomous vehicles or AVs) in the same year that AI “went mainstream” — they are, of course, deeply intertwined technologies. Indeed, the only way we’re going to get the ability to sit back while our car drives us safely to our destination, is with the development of AI — along with an array of sensors, cameras, and radar systems.

But, it may feel like progress has stalled in recent years. Indeed, just this week, the AV giant Cruise began laying off contingent workers who supported its driverless fleet. The layoffs follow a recall of 950 of its self-driving vehicles in response to an incident from October in which a pedestrian was hit into the path of a Cruise car by a human driver, and then dragged some 20 feet by the self-driving vehicle as it attempted to pull over.

The word “recall” in this context actually refers to a software update, which the company says would have kept the Cruise AV stationary after the incident had it been in effect, but the California DMV had already suspended Cruise’s driverless permits in light of the October crash.

The logic of the Cruise vehicle was to get out of the way of other oncoming traffic, presumably to avoid another potential accident. Of course, with a pedestrian entangled with the vehicle, that’s clearly not the “desired post-collision response”.

Trolley problems

Although in this case there seems to be room for improved software, the incident raises the classic ethical dilemma for AV scientists and researchers: in the event of an unavoidable accident, how should software “prioritize” the safety of humans? Should it first check if there is anyone that looks like a child, or a vulnerable individual, at risk, and prioritize their safety? Should it prioritize the passengers in the car, or people outside of the vehicle? How should it “think" about animals — is it okay to swerve to avoid a cat running across a road if it creates a 1% chance of causing an accident? What about a 5% chance? How long should it take to work all of this out if it needs to act quickly?

These questions — part of a wider set of thought experiments often referred to as "trolley problems" — clearly don't have perfect answers, and remain a sticking point for engineers, designers... and the wider public. Indeed, a survey from Pew Research Center found that, when asked whether self-driving cars should prioritize those in or out of the vehicle, a whopping 41% said they weren’t sure, 40% said the passengers of the vehicle itself and 18% said those outside of the car.

More Tech

See all Tech
tech

Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams and banned goods, Reuters reports

Meta has been making billions of dollars per year from scam ads and sales of banned goods, according internal Meta documents seen by Reuters.

The new report quantifies the scale of fraud taking place on Meta’s platforms, and how much the company profited from them.

Per the report, Meta internal projections from late last year said that 10% of the company’s total 2024 revenue would come from scammy ads and sales of banned goods — which works out to $16 billion.

Discussions within Meta acknowledged the steep fines likely to be levied against the company for not stopping the fraudulent behavior on its platforms, and the company prioritized enforcement in regions where the penalties would be steepest, the reporting found. The cost of lost revenue from clamping down on the scams was weighed against the cost of fines from regulators.

The documents reportedly show that Meta did aim to significantly reduce the fraudulent behavior, but cuts to its moderation team left the vast majority of user-reported violations to be ignored or rejected.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told Reuters the documents were a “selective view” of internal enforcement:

“We aggressively fight fraud and scams because people on our platforms don’t want this content, legitimate advertisers don’t want it, and we don’t want it either.”

Per the report, Meta internal projections from late last year said that 10% of the company’s total 2024 revenue would come from scammy ads and sales of banned goods — which works out to $16 billion.

Discussions within Meta acknowledged the steep fines likely to be levied against the company for not stopping the fraudulent behavior on its platforms, and the company prioritized enforcement in regions where the penalties would be steepest, the reporting found. The cost of lost revenue from clamping down on the scams was weighed against the cost of fines from regulators.

The documents reportedly show that Meta did aim to significantly reduce the fraudulent behavior, but cuts to its moderation team left the vast majority of user-reported violations to be ignored or rejected.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told Reuters the documents were a “selective view” of internal enforcement:

“We aggressively fight fraud and scams because people on our platforms don’t want this content, legitimate advertisers don’t want it, and we don’t want it either.”

$350B

Google wants to invest even more money into Anthropic, with the search giant in talks for a new funding round that could value the AI startup at $350 billion, Business Insider reports. That’s about double its valuation from two months ago, but still shy of competitor OpenAI’s $500 billion valuation.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, Business Insider said the new deal “could also take the form of a strategic investment where Google provides additional cloud computing services to Anthropic, a convertible note, or a priced funding round early next year.”

In October, Google, which has a 14% stake in Anthropic, announced that it had inked a deal worth “tens of billions” for Anthropic to access Google’s AI compute to train and serve its Claude model.

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC produces fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and is a fully owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, or Robinhood Money, LLC.