12 ms·

The moment you start mass-producing self-driving cars, people will start dying in accidents that were caused by them. Even if they are vastly safer than human d

The moment you start mass-producing self-driving cars, people will start dying in accidents that were caused by them. Even if they are vastly safer than human drivers^+ , the sheer amount of cars on the highway and the varied situations they get in will mean that there will be accidents caused directly by bad decisions done by the computer. The legal system we have is a lot more lenient to human error than it is to other causes, and this is a major problem, because it means that even if going all AI cars would mean that we lower the fatality rate by 97%, that still means a thousand deaths a year that can be blamed on one company. That company could not possibly continue operating, even if they would be saving 29000 lives every year. I am generally not a fan of the Chinese government, but this is one way in which their system is better than ours. They have people in positions where they can do the math and decide that if some decision greatly saves lives on the net, they can enact it even if it directly causes (less) lives to be lost. ^+ And really, that isn't a hard goal to reach. People largely don't cause fatalities because they are bad at driving, they cause them because they are impaired in one way or another and because the reaction times at high speeds are too hard for humans. Most early AI cars will probably be shitty, but they will largely be shitty in ways that don't endanger the occupants.

JackFr 11y ago
> but this is one way in which their system is better than ours. That is ludicrous. > They have people in positions where they can do the math and decide that if some decision greatly saves lives on the net, they can enact it even if it directly causes (less) lives to be lost. What you mean to say is they have people in positions where they can enact it, for any number of reasons . . . Let's hope the decider guy isn't the air quality monitor for Beijing.
karmacondon 11y ago
I understand your argument, but I see two other possibilities: 1) Drivers remain liable for actions taken by their car's AI. This would encourage people to only use truly driverless AI in the safest possible conditions, ie not on crowded streets or when its raining. This will let market forces balance the technological development of the cars with public adoption 2) After initial legal precedents for damages are set, some companies will make enough money to insure a large fleet of autonomous vehicles. And again, market forces will be able to pace the tradeoff between how "safe" the AI technology is vs how quickly its adopted. tldr; an authoritarian government isn't necessary to push this particular technology forward. As much as I hate to say it, the Free Market will do just fine in this case
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  In China, I'd assume that they would just go fleet and skip autonomous personal vehicles. Basically just taxis without drivers.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  If the AI is as good or better than a human driver your first point wont matter. You can't avoid accidents anyone who is driving a car on a daily basis will be involved in an accident involving another human being in one point or another (and I don't even count rush hour fender benders) that's just statistics. If driverless cars can improve those statistics they'll be used if only than to get lower insurance premiums in the end a company that can reduce the chance of you getting into an accident by even 10% would have every insurance company in the world behind them. I for one do not see a major legal battle or precedents especially not from places like China, smart cruise control and various other drive assist technologies (lane keeping, auto park etc.) have been around for about a decade and we still haven't had major cases around them and there is no way that say Toyota's auto park feature did not cause some accidents. Driverless or not as long as there is a driver in the car they are responsible for any liabilities as they have full control over the car even in drive assist mode (steering and breaking is always accessible to the driver) so unless there will be some major issue and that issue has to be that the AI actually prevented the driver from using the car controls I don't see any major legal issues arising. And by the time driverless cars become truly driverless as in Total Recall (the Schwarzenegger one) driveless insurance companies would find a solution for that just like they found a solution for human drivers. As long as it's an accident and the AI and all car systems were in working order the insurance will cover it if the car was not maintained properly then the owner of the service will be liable. This is pretty much how human driver coverage works, if you did nothing wrong, the car was maintained, and you weren't negligible (e.g. drunk driving, speeding, etc.) you are covered by your insurance in any other case you are on your own.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > This would encourage people to only use truly driverless AI in the safest possible conditions, ie not on crowded streets or when its raining. You just cancelled any driverless cars in NL or the UK. Driverless cars are only useful if they have a 'backup' driving mode by a person in the most extreme of circumstances. Under all normal conditions the car should drive itself. Otherwise it is not a 'driverless car' but merely a car with a software augmentation for the driver and they should be lumped in with the regular cars. Self driving cars should be able to move from one place to another without a licensed driver present or required in all circumstances normally encountered.
tim333 11y ago
>Chinese government... can do the math I read 1 in 5 deaths in China are caused by air pollution. Not sure they are doing a great job there.
- radu_floricica 11y ago
  Actually, it could still be worth it. Lives are, by and large, prolonged and bettered with wealth. It could very well be that they did the math and 1 in 5 for 30 years due to rapid industrialization is better than the alternative.
  - infinotize 11y ago
    It was OK that children were put to work, maimed and died in droves during the industrial revolution. We wouldn't be where we are today without their sacrifice!
    - radu_floricica 11y ago
      Lots of what we're doing right now is luxury earned by our current level of development. It's nice to find an emotional example like maimed children, but if you tried to run 19 century industry with all of today's regulations and benefits, you's simply fail. And from that we go to "was _this_ particular thing really necessary?", which doesn't really change the main argument. Sure, they could've done without maimed children. Add 8 hour workday, weekends, maternity leave, minimum wages, social security, pensions, health care and pretty much all the things we take so much for granted I can't even think of them. Like I said, it's about wealth - some things you can afford as a country when you're US and some you don't when you're Moldova or Albania, not to mention Congo.
- skj 11y ago
  Or maybe they decided the math works out?
lumberjack 11y ago
You're essentially saying that autoritarianism is better because it can at times disregard individual rights in the name of efficiency.
- ramblerman 11y ago
  He proposed this is one advantage that system has in this particular matter. You didn't disprove that point, just reword it into the ominous general case (totalitarianism == good) which is a statement he never made.
  - lumberjack 11y ago
    Yes, he's saying that it is a good feature to be able.to disregard individual rights in the name of overall efficiency. To say that that is controversial is an understatement.
    - danparsonson 11y ago
      It's a classic moral dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). If you knew 100 people would die this year but you could do something that would save them all at the expense of killing 50 other people, what would you do? The coldly logical choice is to "disregard individual rights in the name of overall efficiency" and prefer 50 deaths to 100, particularly if you're a government - isn't it?

JackFr 11y ago

> but this is one way in which their system is better than ours. That is ludicrous. > They have people in positions where they can do the math and decide that if some decision greatly saves lives on the net, they can enact it even if it directly causes (less) lives to be lost. What you mean to say is they have people in positions where they can enact it, for any number of reasons . . . Let's hope the decider guy isn't the air quality monitor for Beijing.

karmacondon 11y ago

I understand your argument, but I see two other possibilities: 1) Drivers remain liable for actions taken by their car's AI. This would encourage people to only use truly driverless AI in the safest possible conditions, ie not on crowded streets or when its raining. This will let market forces balance the technological development of the cars with public adoption 2) After initial legal precedents for damages are set, some companies will make enough money to insure a large fleet of autonomous vehicles. And again, market forces will be able to pace the tradeoff between how "safe" the AI technology is vs how quickly its adopted. tldr; an authoritarian government isn't necessary to push this particular technology forward. As much as I hate to say it, the Free Market will do just fine in this case

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
In China, I'd assume that they would just go fleet and skip autonomous personal vehicles. Basically just taxis without drivers.
dogma1138 11y ago
If the AI is as good or better than a human driver your first point wont matter. You can't avoid accidents anyone who is driving a car on a daily basis will be involved in an accident involving another human being in one point or another (and I don't even count rush hour fender benders) that's just statistics. If driverless cars can improve those statistics they'll be used if only than to get lower insurance premiums in the end a company that can reduce the chance of you getting into an accident by even 10% would have every insurance company in the world behind them. I for one do not see a major legal battle or precedents especially not from places like China, smart cruise control and various other drive assist technologies (lane keeping, auto park etc.) have been around for about a decade and we still haven't had major cases around them and there is no way that say Toyota's auto park feature did not cause some accidents. Driverless or not as long as there is a driver in the car they are responsible for any liabilities as they have full control over the car even in drive assist mode (steering and breaking is always accessible to the driver) so unless there will be some major issue and that issue has to be that the AI actually prevented the driver from using the car controls I don't see any major legal issues arising. And by the time driverless cars become truly driverless as in Total Recall (the Schwarzenegger one) driveless insurance companies would find a solution for that just like they found a solution for human drivers. As long as it's an accident and the AI and all car systems were in working order the insurance will cover it if the car was not maintained properly then the owner of the service will be liable. This is pretty much how human driver coverage works, if you did nothing wrong, the car was maintained, and you weren't negligible (e.g. drunk driving, speeding, etc.) you are covered by your insurance in any other case you are on your own.
jacquesm 11y ago
> This would encourage people to only use truly driverless AI in the safest possible conditions, ie not on crowded streets or when its raining. You just cancelled any driverless cars in NL or the UK. Driverless cars are only useful if they have a 'backup' driving mode by a person in the most extreme of circumstances. Under all normal conditions the car should drive itself. Otherwise it is not a 'driverless car' but merely a car with a software augmentation for the driver and they should be lumped in with the regular cars. Self driving cars should be able to move from one place to another without a licensed driver present or required in all circumstances normally encountered.

tim333 11y ago

>Chinese government... can do the math I read 1 in 5 deaths in China are caused by air pollution. Not sure they are doing a great job there.

radu_floricica 11y ago
Actually, it could still be worth it. Lives are, by and large, prolonged and bettered with wealth. It could very well be that they did the math and 1 in 5 for 30 years due to rapid industrialization is better than the alternative.
- infinotize 11y ago
  It was OK that children were put to work, maimed and died in droves during the industrial revolution. We wouldn't be where we are today without their sacrifice!
  - radu_floricica 11y ago
    Lots of what we're doing right now is luxury earned by our current level of development. It's nice to find an emotional example like maimed children, but if you tried to run 19 century industry with all of today's regulations and benefits, you's simply fail. And from that we go to "was _this_ particular thing really necessary?", which doesn't really change the main argument. Sure, they could've done without maimed children. Add 8 hour workday, weekends, maternity leave, minimum wages, social security, pensions, health care and pretty much all the things we take so much for granted I can't even think of them. Like I said, it's about wealth - some things you can afford as a country when you're US and some you don't when you're Moldova or Albania, not to mention Congo.
skj 11y ago
Or maybe they decided the math works out?

lumberjack 11y ago

You're essentially saying that autoritarianism is better because it can at times disregard individual rights in the name of efficiency.

ramblerman 11y ago
He proposed this is one advantage that system has in this particular matter. You didn't disprove that point, just reword it into the ominous general case (totalitarianism == good) which is a statement he never made.
- lumberjack 11y ago
  Yes, he's saying that it is a good feature to be able.to disregard individual rights in the name of overall efficiency. To say that that is controversial is an understatement.
  - danparsonson 11y ago
    It's a classic moral dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). If you knew 100 people would die this year but you could do something that would save them all at the expense of killing 50 other people, what would you do? The coldly logical choice is to "disregard individual rights in the name of overall efficiency" and prefer 50 deaths to 100, particularly if you're a government - isn't it?