This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
of legality.

Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
consequences of using expectation of safety features to
correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.

Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
another lane, expecting safety engagement.

Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
a side swipe.

I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
let the offending car escape a chain reaction
accident scene.

The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
outcome can be inferred first degree murder.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> of legality.
>
> Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
>
> Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> another lane, expecting safety engagement.
>
> Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> a side swipe.
>
> I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> accident scene.
>
> The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> outcome can be inferred first degree murder.

Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.

The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1:37:00 PM UTC-5, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> > a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> > of legality.
> >
> > Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> > consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> > correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> > turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
> >
> > Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> > another lane, expecting safety engagement.
> >
> > Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> > driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> > driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> > a side swipe.
> >
> > I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> > in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> > let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> > accident scene.
> >
> > The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> > outcome can be inferred first degree murder.
> Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
> writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.
>
> The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.

Artificial intelligence can achieve absolutely anything.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-4, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> > a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> > of legality.
> >
> > Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> > consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> > correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> > turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
> >
> > Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> > another lane, expecting safety engagement.
> >
> > Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> > driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> > driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> > a side swipe.
> >
> > I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> > in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> > let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> > accident scene.
> >
> > The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> > outcome can be inferred first degree murder.
> Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
> writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.
>
> The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.
A proper solution to AI mistakes is to include an AI that records a vehicle in a black box
method.

So in a traffic stop the police officer plugs in a USB to down load the black box
And issues citations for any offences.

Lawyer's I believe have web portals that direct a case to the proper
assistant. Replacing a lawyer requires an AI approved by
the State. A court room AI is a big question it likely violates
the Constitution.

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 2:51:48 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-4, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> > > a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> > > of legality.
> > >
> > > Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> > > consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> > > correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> > > turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
> > >
> > > Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> > > another lane, expecting safety engagement.
> > >
> > > Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> > > driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> > > driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> > > a side swipe.
> > >
> > > I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> > > in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> > > let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> > > accident scene.
> > >
> > > The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> > > outcome can be inferred first degree murder.
> > Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
> > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
> > writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.
> >
> > The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.
> A proper solution to AI mistakes is to include an AI that records a vehicle in a black box
> method.
>
> So in a traffic stop the police officer plugs in a USB to down load the black box
> And issues citations for any offences.
>
> Lawyer's I believe have web portals that direct a case to the proper
> assistant. Replacing a lawyer requires an AI approved by
> the State. A court room AI is a big question it likely violates
> the Constitution.
So that'll be great ; the cop stops you and instead of giving you a ticket for what you've just done you get 20 tickets stretching back two years for all your previous offences.

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 11:27:10 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 2:51:48 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-4, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > > This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> > > > a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> > > > of legality.
> > > >
> > > > Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> > > > consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> > > > correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> > > > turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
> > > >
> > > > Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> > > > another lane, expecting safety engagement.
> > > >
> > > > Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> > > > driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> > > > driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> > > > a side swipe.
> > > >
> > > > I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> > > > in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> > > > let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> > > > accident scene.
> > > >
> > > > The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> > > > outcome can be inferred first degree murder.
> > > Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
> > > writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.
> > >
> > > The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.
> > A proper solution to AI mistakes is to include an AI that records a vehicle in a black box
> > method.
> >
> > So in a traffic stop the police officer plugs in a USB to down load the black box
> > And issues citations for any offences.
> >
> > Lawyer's I believe have web portals that direct a case to the proper
> > assistant. Replacing a lawyer requires an AI approved by
> > the State. A court room AI is a big question it likely violates
> > the Constitution.
> So that'll be great ; the cop stops you and instead of giving you a ticket for what you've just done you get 20 tickets stretching back two years for all your previous offences.

Sorry that is how the law works. Getting pulled over for a light out allows the officer
to look into the backseat for something like an old liqueur bottle. They then
run you thru the verbal profile discussion even if no bottle is found.

The fbi is the same. A search for particular evidence, means evidence of
any crime can bring charges for the unrelated search justification. It even
goes so far as to having to talk openly to the agent. They also bring a Grand Jury
summons to give you a choice of talking openly or talking openly to the Jury.
My understanding of the Jury is that they have no patience with anyone. Lying to
the fbi or the jury is real bad news.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 1:05:11 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 11:27:10 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 2:51:48 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-4, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > > > This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> > > > > a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> > > > > of legality.
> > > > >
> > > > > Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> > > > > consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> > > > > correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> > > > > turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> > > > > another lane, expecting safety engagement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> > > > > driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> > > > > driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> > > > > a side swipe.
> > > > >
> > > > > I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> > > > > in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> > > > > let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> > > > > accident scene.
> > > > >
> > > > > The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> > > > > outcome can be inferred first degree murder.
> > > > Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
> > > > writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.
> > > >
> > > > The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.
> > > A proper solution to AI mistakes is to include an AI that records a vehicle in a black box
> > > method.
> > >
> > > So in a traffic stop the police officer plugs in a USB to down load the black box
> > > And issues citations for any offences.
> > >
> > > Lawyer's I believe have web portals that direct a case to the proper
> > > assistant. Replacing a lawyer requires an AI approved by
> > > the State. A court room AI is a big question it likely violates
> > > the Constitution.
> > So that'll be great ; the cop stops you and instead of giving you a ticket for what you've just done you get 20 tickets stretching back two years for all your previous offences.
> Sorry that is how the law works. Getting pulled over for a light out allows the officer
> to look into the backseat for something like an old liqueur bottle. They then
> run you thru the verbal profile discussion even if no bottle is found.
>
> The fbi is the same. A search for particular evidence, means evidence of
> any crime can bring charges for the unrelated search justification. It even
> goes so far as to having to talk openly to the agent. They also bring a Grand Jury
> summons to give you a choice of talking openly or talking openly to the Jury.
> My understanding of the Jury is that they have no patience with anyone. Lying to
> the fbi or the jury is real bad news.

Yeah, Douglas. That's the system we've created for ourselves. Hell on Earth.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:26:00 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 1:05:11 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 11:27:10 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 2:51:48 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-4, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > > > > This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> > > > > > a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> > > > > > of legality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> > > > > > consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> > > > > > correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> > > > > > turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> > > > > > another lane, expecting safety engagement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> > > > > > driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> > > > > > driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> > > > > > a side swipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> > > > > > in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> > > > > > let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> > > > > > accident scene.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> > > > > > outcome can be inferred first degree murder.
> > > > > Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
> > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
> > > > > writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.
> > > > >
> > > > > The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.
> > > > A proper solution to AI mistakes is to include an AI that records a vehicle in a black box
> > > > method.
> > > >
> > > > So in a traffic stop the police officer plugs in a USB to down load the black box
> > > > And issues citations for any offences.
> > > >
> > > > Lawyer's I believe have web portals that direct a case to the proper
> > > > assistant. Replacing a lawyer requires an AI approved by
> > > > the State. A court room AI is a big question it likely violates
> > > > the Constitution.
> > > So that'll be great ; the cop stops you and instead of giving you a ticket for what you've just done you get 20 tickets stretching back two years for all your previous offences.
> > Sorry that is how the law works. Getting pulled over for a light out allows the officer
> > to look into the backseat for something like an old liqueur bottle. They then
> > run you thru the verbal profile discussion even if no bottle is found.
> >
> > The fbi is the same. A search for particular evidence, means evidence of
> > any crime can bring charges for the unrelated search justification. It even
> > goes so far as to having to talk openly to the agent. They also bring a Grand Jury
> > summons to give you a choice of talking openly or talking openly to the Jury.
> > My understanding of the Jury is that they have no patience with anyone. Lying to
> > the fbi or the jury is real bad news.
> Yeah, Douglas. That's the system we've created for ourselves. Hell on Earth.

Maybe there is an out. Get approval for an AI computer to talk to the officer?
If the AI response requires your input to formulate the reply, it asks you. Then
states the answer to the officer. Think of it as a real time lawyer AI.

Law wise you just restate the AI answer. It would then be technically a memory
aid.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 1:44:32 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:26:00 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 1:05:11 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 11:27:10 PM UTC-4, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 2:51:48 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-4, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:09:25 PM UTC+1, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > > > > > > This era of self driving cars Is supposed to bring
> > > > > > > a nationwide reaction to a critical examination
> > > > > > > of legality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Drivers are now having to learn proper usage. And learn the
> > > > > > > consequences of using expectation of safety features to
> > > > > > > correct a driving mistake. Some people will obviously
> > > > > > > turn or brake illegally for the fun of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Meaning sudden moves such as tailgating and swerving into
> > > > > > > another lane, expecting safety engagement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Technical expectation can have deadly reactions by a normal
> > > > > > > driver. Sharply swerving lanes can cause the interfered
> > > > > > > driver lock the brakes up. Or have too swerve to prevent
> > > > > > > a side swipe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I implemented my own safety protocol. I will never swerve
> > > > > > > in a lane change conflict. I will take a side hit and never
> > > > > > > let the offending car escape a chain reaction
> > > > > > > accident scene.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The law is just starting to address this issue. The deadly
> > > > > > > outcome can be inferred first degree murder.
> > > > > > Long ago while autonomous vehicles were being discussed in this group, also the Turing competition (Prize)
> > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york
> > > > > > writers questioned if an artificial intelligence coudl take the place of lawyers after cops had nabbed the offender.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The group then returned to the philosophical conversations that made it popular.
> > > > > A proper solution to AI mistakes is to include an AI that records a vehicle in a black box
> > > > > method.
> > > > >
> > > > > So in a traffic stop the police officer plugs in a USB to down load the black box
> > > > > And issues citations for any offences.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lawyer's I believe have web portals that direct a case to the proper
> > > > > assistant. Replacing a lawyer requires an AI approved by
> > > > > the State. A court room AI is a big question it likely violates
> > > > > the Constitution.
> > > > So that'll be great ; the cop stops you and instead of giving you a ticket for what you've just done you get 20 tickets stretching back two years for all your previous offences.
> > > Sorry that is how the law works. Getting pulled over for a light out allows the officer
> > > to look into the backseat for something like an old liqueur bottle. They then
> > > run you thru the verbal profile discussion even if no bottle is found.
> > >
> > > The fbi is the same. A search for particular evidence, means evidence of
> > > any crime can bring charges for the unrelated search justification. It even
> > > goes so far as to having to talk openly to the agent. They also bring a Grand Jury
> > > summons to give you a choice of talking openly or talking openly to the Jury.
> > > My understanding of the Jury is that they have no patience with anyone. Lying to
> > > the fbi or the jury is real bad news.
> > Yeah, Douglas. That's the system we've created for ourselves. Hell on Earth.
> Maybe there is an out. Get approval for an AI computer to talk to the officer?
> If the AI response requires your input to formulate the reply, it asks you. Then
> states the answer to the officer. Think of it as a real time lawyer AI.
>
> Law wise you just restate the AI answer. It would then be technically a memory
> aid.

I guess so if AIs can be made that sophisticated . People sure expect a lot of them.