3 ms·
That assumes the tech is crap though, doesn't it? I think there's a case to be made that once the tech has progressed enough, there will be fewer deaths/injurie
by Karunamon 11y ago
That assumes the tech is crap though, doesn't it? I think there's a case to be made that once the tech has progressed enough, there will be fewer deaths/injuries overall even if some of the number has moved from the "human did something dumb" to "human couldn't take over from autopilot fast enough"
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI think the danger is that semi-self-driving with occasional human intervention will be more dangerous than pure human driving. If the interventions are so rare that the average deaths/injuries fall below the current level, then of course we've made some progress. But hopefully by this time we'll be able to go full-auto. It's hard to imagine an extremely unexpected dangerous situation, in which giving control to human would be better than just making the algorithm try and recover.
- mreiland 11y agofull auto is not practical unless by full auto you mean the driver can opt-in at any point with a clear protocol for doing so. I think the mistake people are making is thinking the vehicle is just going to be like 'welp, death imminent in 5 seconds, hairy pink skinned passenger, here ya go! do somefink abooot it!'. In reality the vehicle is going to be assessing potential risk and let the passenger know when they need to be more attentive, even to the point of simply refusing to operate without the passenger signaling their attentiveness in some manner.