A human not a car
I do not like this article because it makes it attempts to make an allusion that cars(mechanical devices) can "think"..
1 : Cars dont think, they are mechanical devices .
2 : That car was designed , built and programmed by a "human", therefore a "human" if anything saved a life..
3 : The captors in that car detected an obstacle, I very much doubt that the obstacle was recognized cognitively as being a "human being"* so the notion of saving a life is void..
4 : If that obstacle had been a madman shooting at the car, the car would have applied the same logic, see below, and the madman would have had even more time to continue to shoot....therefore potentially assisting in a death... The logic works both ways !
Therefore that statement should have read "Car detectors detected an object, applied further logic from it's algorithm, ie , "obstacle detection + distance + car speed = impact imminent" and applied the appropriate logic to induce deceleration".
We are definitely moving forward in the AI world but we are definitely not at the point that the article would like to make allusion..
Someone at El Reg must have just finished their copy of the Daily Mail before writing this article..
I much preferred the recent article about how a university managed to create an algorithm that was capable of determining of whether two previously unknown objects were the same or not. ( I'm damned if if I can find that article - it's only about a month old)