3 ms·
My consolation in that fact is that weird edge cases happen with human driven cars as well. Someone has a seizure and crashes, or more commonly reaches for a ci
by llamataboot 11y ago
My consolation in that fact is that weird edge cases happen with human driven cars as well. Someone has a seizure and crashes, or more commonly reaches for a cigarette, the radio, their phone. People hit ice or water and overcorrect their spin. People drive too fast. Etc etc etc. Not even all edge cases, many common modes of failure. I except self-driving cars that kill people will be a huge emotional issue for a lot of people in accepting them, but for me, i just want them to be safer than human drivers, which isn't THAT high of a bar to cross.
- fizzbatter 11y agoYup. People seem to be overly critical with automated car failures. Personally, i think automated cars are going to easily be better than humans in the working cases (both human and ai are concious). Next, i expect to see fully operational backup systems. Eg, if a monitoring system decides that the primary system is failing for whatever reason, be it bug or unhandled road condition (tree/etc), the backup system takes over and solely attempts to get the driver off the road, and into a safe location. Humans often fail, but often can attempt to recover. And, as bad as we may be at even recovering, we know to try and avoid oncoming traffic. Computers (currently) are very bad at recovering when they fail. I feel like having a computer driving, in the event of failure, is akin to a narcoleptic driver - when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong. Hence why i hope to see a backup system, completely isolated, and fully intent on safely changing lanes or finding a suitable area to pull over.
- nostalgiac 11y agoSounds good in theory. Until the bug that causes failure is also present in the monitoring system, and as such doesn't fail over to the backup system. AKA exactly what happened here to Google.