Drivers More Likely to Be Distracted While Using Partial Automation Tech, Study Shows 

Cars are stuck in traffic after police blocked the road in West Palm Beach, Florida, on September 15, 2024 following a shooting incident at former US president Donald Trump's golf course. (AFP)
Cars are stuck in traffic after police blocked the road in West Palm Beach, Florida, on September 15, 2024 following a shooting incident at former US president Donald Trump's golf course. (AFP)
TT
20

Drivers More Likely to Be Distracted While Using Partial Automation Tech, Study Shows 

Cars are stuck in traffic after police blocked the road in West Palm Beach, Florida, on September 15, 2024 following a shooting incident at former US president Donald Trump's golf course. (AFP)
Cars are stuck in traffic after police blocked the road in West Palm Beach, Florida, on September 15, 2024 following a shooting incident at former US president Donald Trump's golf course. (AFP)

Drivers are more likely to engage in non-driving activities, such as checking their phones or eating a sandwich, when using partial automation systems, with some easily skirting rules set to limit distractions, new research showed on Tuesday.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted month-long studies with two such systems - Tesla's Autopilot and Volvo's Pilot Assist - to examine driver behavior when the technology was in use and how it evolved over time.

While launching and commercializing driverless taxis have been tougher than expected, major automakers are in a race to deploy technology that partially automates routine driving tasks to make it easier and safer for drivers, and generate revenue for the companies.

The rush has sparked concerns and litigation around the dangers of driver distraction and crashes involving such technology.

The studies show better safeguards are needed to ensure attentive driving, IIHS said in the report.

Partial automation - a level of "advanced driver assistance systems" - uses cameras, sensors and software to regulate the speed of the car based on other vehicles on the road and keep it in the center of the lane. Some enable lane changing automatically or when prompted.

Drivers, however, are required to continuously monitor the road and be ready to take over at any time, with most systems needing them to keep their hands on the wheel.

"These results are a good reminder of the way people learn," said IIHS President David Harkey. "If you train them to think that paying attention means nudging the steering wheel every few seconds, then that's exactly what they'll do."

"In both these studies, drivers adapted their behavior to engage in distracting activities," Harkey said. "This demonstrates why partial automation systems need more robust safeguards to prevent misuse."

The study with Tesla's Autopilot used 14 people who drove over 12,000 miles (19,300 km) with the system, triggering 3,858 attention-related warnings. On average, drivers responded in about three seconds, usually by nudging the steering wheel, mostly preventing an escalation.

The study with Volvo's Pilot Assist had 29 volunteers who were found to be distracted for 30% of the time while using the system - "exceedingly high" according to the authors.



Justice at Stake as Generative AI Enters the Courtroom

Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
TT
20

Justice at Stake as Generative AI Enters the Courtroom

Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is making its way into courts despite early stumbles, raising questions about how it will influence the legal system and justice itself.

Judges use the technology for research, lawyers utilize it for appeals and parties involved in cases have relied on GenAI to help express themselves in court.

"It's probably used more than people expect," said Daniel Linna, a professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, about GenAI in the US legal system.

"Judges don't necessarily raise their hand and talk about this to a whole room of judges, but I have people who come to me afterward and say they are experimenting with it”.

In one prominent instance, GenAI enabled murder victim Chris Pelkey to address an Arizona courtroom -- in the form of a video avatar -- at the sentencing of the man convicted of shooting him dead in 2021 during a clash between motorists.

"I believe in forgiveness," said a digital proxy of Pelkey created by his sister, Stacey Wales.

The judge voiced appreciation for the avatar, saying it seemed authentic.

"I knew it would be powerful," Wales told , "that that it would humanize Chris in the eyes of the judge."

The AI testimony, a first of its kind, ended the sentencing hearing at which Wales and other members of the slain man's family spoke about the impact of the loss.

Since the hearing, examples of GenAI being used in US legal cases have multiplied.

"It is a helpful tool and it is time-saving, as long as the accuracy is confirmed," said attorney Stephen Schwartz, who practices in the northeastern state of Maine.

"Overall, it's a positive development in jurisprudence."

Schwartz described using ChatGPT as well as GenAI legal assistants, such as LexisNexis Protege and CoCounsel from Thomson Reuters, for researching case law and other tasks.

"You can't completely rely on it," Schwartz cautioned, recommending that cases proffered by GenAI be read to ensure accuracy.

"We are all aware of a horror story where AI comes up with mixed-up case things."

The technology has been the culprit behind false legal citations, far-fetched case precedents, and flat-out fabrications.

In early May, a federal judge in Los Angeles imposed $31,100 in fines and damages on two law firms for an error-riddled petition drafted with the help of GenAI, blasting it as a "collective debacle."

The tech is also being relied on by some who skip lawyers and represent themselves in court, often causing legal errors.

And as GenAI makes it easier and cheaper to draft legal complaints, courts already overburdened by caseloads could see them climb higher, said Shay Cleary of the National Center for State Courts.

"Courts need to be prepared to handle that," Cleary said.

Transformation

Law professor Linna sees the potential for GenAI to be part of the solution though, giving more people the ability to seek justice in courts made more efficient.

"We have a huge number of people who don't have access to legal services," Linna said.

"These tools can be transformative; of course we need to be thoughtful about how we integrate them."

Federal judges in the US capitol have written decisions noting their use of ChatGPT in laying out their opinions.

"Judges need to be technologically up-to-date and trained in AI," Linna said.

GenAI assistants already have the potential to influence the outcome of cases the same way a human law clerk might, reasoned the professor.

Facts or case law pointed out by GenAI might sway a judge's decision, and could be different than what a legal clerk would have come up with.

But if GenAI lives up to its potential and excels at finding the best information for judges to consider, that could make for well-grounded rulings less likely to be overturned on appeal, according to Linna.