3 ms·

Self-driving cars don't have to be safe in an absolute sense, just safer than human drivers. I think in some ways that is not a very high bar.

mblakele 17y ago
From a technocratic point of view, yes. From an emotional point of view, no. People are more forgiving of one another than of machines. Machines are supposed to be perfect.
ams6110 17y ago
True, but if a human driver causes an accident it's treated as a one-off thing. If a software bug causes your auto-driver to veer into the oncoming lane under certain conditions, the manufacturer will be pilloried even if the raw number of accidents is less than what human drivers cause. Irrational, yes, but that's the way it is.
- bad_user 17y ago
  Actually it's more like ... one drunk driver can cause one isolated accident (assuming his license is revoked, he learns his lesson or he's dead afterwards). One software bug can cause 10000.
  - bioweek 17y ago
    So the answer is learning software!
  - ugh 17y ago
    Now, that’s definitely the wrong analogy. Drinking and driving is the bug, not any individual. Societies with access to alcohol and cars have that bug. Punishing the individual is sort of like telling your user who just reported a bug “Oh, the program crashed when you clicked on that button? Yeah, don’t do that.“ It’s like putting huge red warning labels next to that button or make the mouse move slower when it comes close to that button. It’s like taking the program away from that and only that one user. Cute, but won’t fix the bug. We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there.
    - bad_user 17y ago
      > Drinking and driving is the bug, not any individual. Societies with access to alcohol and cars have that bug. That's rich. That's another way of saying ... societies with people in them have bugs. Yeah, my wife last night had a bug ... she kept wining that I work too much. If this escalates we'll probably end-up like other people getting divorced ... which could lead me into getting drunk and into a car crash. If people only automated those cars, I wouldn't have to worry about it. Problem is, that's not a bug I can fix ... next time I'll get some automated robot that doesn't mind me working so much ... hope she doesn't BSOD on me though. > We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there. No, it would only give those people with God-syndrome some sense of control.

mblakele 17y ago

From a technocratic point of view, yes. From an emotional point of view, no. People are more forgiving of one another than of machines. Machines are supposed to be perfect.

ams6110 17y ago

True, but if a human driver causes an accident it's treated as a one-off thing. If a software bug causes your auto-driver to veer into the oncoming lane under certain conditions, the manufacturer will be pilloried even if the raw number of accidents is less than what human drivers cause. Irrational, yes, but that's the way it is.

bad_user 17y ago
Actually it's more like ... one drunk driver can cause one isolated accident (assuming his license is revoked, he learns his lesson or he's dead afterwards). One software bug can cause 10000.
- bioweek 17y ago
  So the answer is learning software!
- ugh 17y ago
  Now, that’s definitely the wrong analogy. Drinking and driving is the bug, not any individual. Societies with access to alcohol and cars have that bug. Punishing the individual is sort of like telling your user who just reported a bug “Oh, the program crashed when you clicked on that button? Yeah, don’t do that.“ It’s like putting huge red warning labels next to that button or make the mouse move slower when it comes close to that button. It’s like taking the program away from that and only that one user. Cute, but won’t fix the bug. We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    > Drinking and driving is the bug, not any individual. Societies with access to alcohol and cars have that bug. That's rich. That's another way of saying ... societies with people in them have bugs. Yeah, my wife last night had a bug ... she kept wining that I work too much. If this escalates we'll probably end-up like other people getting divorced ... which could lead me into getting drunk and into a car crash. If people only automated those cars, I wouldn't have to worry about it. Problem is, that's not a bug I can fix ... next time I'll get some automated robot that doesn't mind me working so much ... hope she doesn't BSOD on me though. > We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there. No, it would only give those people with God-syndrome some sense of control.