Wanted to add:
I think this post is great for here on LW, but if someone wanted to actually start teaching students to understand math more deeply, calling it common sense probably comes off as condescending, because it doesn't feel that way until you get comfortable with it. There's a lot to unlearn and for a lot of people it is very intimidating.
Personally I wish we treated math class at least some of the time as a form of play. We make sure to teach kids about jokes and wordplay and do fun science-y demonstrations, but math is all dry and technical. We assign kids books to read like A Wrinkle in Time and The Phantom Tollbooth. But, I don't think my elementary school teachers had any clue what a tesseract was, or what the Mathemagician and Dodecahedron are all about, and so that whole aspect of these books was just a lost opportunity for all but maybe 3 kids in my grade.
which I worry your teachers didn’t
Oh it can be so much worse than that - actively pushing students away from that kind of understanding. I've had math teachers mark answers wrong because I (correctly) derived a rule I'd forgotten instead of phrasing it the way they taught it, or because they couldn't follow the derivation. Before college, I can think of maybe two of my teachers who actually seemed to understand high school math in any deeper way.
As in, if a truck stops, within 10 minutes you have to put out orange triangles. But a driverless truck has no way to do that
This...seems like a problem that can be solved with basically three slightly-customized triangle-carrying roombas that drop from the rear bumper and form a line? May remote controllable with a remotely monitorable rear view camera or small camera drone?
Yet evolution specifically programmed humans to never ever worry about the welfare of beings in our "imagination," because "they aren't real."
True. And yet we don't even need to go as far as a realistic movie to override that limitation. All it takes to create such worry is to have someone draw a 2D cartoon of a very sad and lonely dog, which is even less real. Or play some sad music while showing a video a lamp in the rain, which is clearly inanimate. In some ways these induced worries for unfeeling entities are super stimuli for many of us, stronger than we may feel for many actual people.
I agree that AI in general has the potential to implement something-like-CEV, and this would be better than what we have now by far. Reading your original post I didn't get much sense of attention to the 'E,' and without that I think this would be horrible. Of course, either one implemented strongly enough goes off the rails unless it's done just right, aka the whole question is downstream of pretty strong alignment success, and so for the time being we should be cautious about floating this kind of idea and clear about what would be needed to make it a good idea.
There's a less than flattering quote from a book from 1916 that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." That pretty well summarizes my main fear for this kind of proposal and the ways most possible implementation attempts at it would go wrong.
The clockwise rule is what you are supposed to do if people arrive to the intersection at the same time.
If exactly two people going opposite directions arrive at the same time and aren't both going straight, then the one going straight goes before the one turning, or the one turning right goes before the one turning left.
At least, that's how I and everyone I know was taught, and no, those of us who asked what "at the same time" actually means never got a straight answer.