The entire point of the article you're discussing is that there are a million bizarre little circumstances like this that the software will probably fail to take into account, not that carjacking specifically is unsurmountable. This stuff isn't "embarrassingly absurd;" it happens daily.
> The entire point of the article you're discussing is that there are a million bizarre little circumstances like this
In defense of the article, which is pretty reasonable, it doesn't mention the ridiculous hijacking example you were harping on. That is quite a unique situation, technically and ethically.
The other examples you gave: bad roads, downed power lines, weather, and fire are all much more reasonable examples, with much more straightforward solutions available. It's essentially obstacle avoidance and exception handling. The article's example of situations involving not having any safe place to stop is even more interesting.
edit: I was referring to TFA, not to the artist who illustrated some stuff on his blog and shared it here. Which was also a fine effort...
> In defense of the article, which is pretty reasonable, it doesn't mention the ridiculous hijacking example you were harping on. That is quite a unique situation, technically and ethically.
It is clearly one of the implied reasons a bunch of armed men would be standing around on the road in that picture. What makes it "ridiculous," exactly?
If you're on a road with armed men with hostile intent, the fact that your autonomous car is unable to offer a solution is absolutely the least of your worries. The unique properties of the armed men on the side of the road problem are not representative of the more general problems vehicle autonomy involves. Take your pick.
Speeding past or turning around are sensible actions a human driver could take that the AI probably would not. The whole point of that example is that the appropriate response to armed guys on the road is not the same in one context as another.
