4 ms·

There's psychological and game theoretic factors that the safety has to overcome in order to be acceptable. Part of why human drivers are allowed today is becau

There's psychological and game theoretic factors that the safety has to overcome in order to be acceptable. Part of why human drivers are allowed today is because the people who bear the cost of driving decisions are directly involved in making those decisions. Once you give up control to a third party, they need to be significantly better to make it an acceptable choice on the individual level. In other words, I agree that it's better for society, but that "better for society" isn't the metric that gets used for making decisions within the system.

amelius 11y ago
> Part of why human drivers are allowed today is because the people who bear the cost of driving decisions are directly involved in making those decisions. This gives me weird visions of Google engineers with a necklace that explodes in the event that one of their cars causes an accident :S
- amazon_not 11y ago
  I wonder if you've read Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton? Unremovable, remote controllable lethal necklaces are a central plot device in the mercenary invasion. They are put on randomly chosen civilians as "collateral" to ensure co-operation and disincentive insurgency.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  The difference there is that one person's mistake driving causes one accident. One person's mistake programming might cause a thousand.
makip 11y ago
I see where you're going with this and I agree. A significant consideration is whether owners of self driving cars will have the right to make code modifications to their vehicles. Captured aptly here by Cory Doctrow. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/23/the-problem-with-self-driving-cars-who-controls-the-code https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/23/the-probl... Edit: salient quotes from the article: "Here’s a different way of thinking about [the trolley] problem: if you wanted to design a car that intentionally murdered its driver under certain circumstances, how would you make sure that the driver never altered its programming so that they could be assured that their property would never intentionally murder them?" "If self-driving cars can only be safe if we are sure no one can reconfigure them without manufacturer approval, then they will never be safe." "Your relationship to the car you ride in, but do not own, makes all the problems mentioned even harder."
794CD01 11y ago
People in general don't willingly prioritize their own safety at the expense of convenience. That's why cars beep when you don't buckle your seatbelt. That's why people drink soda and eat fast food.

amelius 11y ago

> Part of why human drivers are allowed today is because the people who bear the cost of driving decisions are directly involved in making those decisions. This gives me weird visions of Google engineers with a necklace that explodes in the event that one of their cars causes an accident :S

amazon_not 11y ago
I wonder if you've read Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton? Unremovable, remote controllable lethal necklaces are a central plot device in the mercenary invasion. They are put on randomly chosen civilians as "collateral" to ensure co-operation and disincentive insurgency.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
seanp2k2 11y ago
The difference there is that one person's mistake driving causes one accident. One person's mistake programming might cause a thousand.

makip 11y ago

I see where you're going with this and I agree. A significant consideration is whether owners of self driving cars will have the right to make code modifications to their vehicles. Captured aptly here by Cory Doctrow. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/23/the-problem-with-self-driving-cars-who-controls-the-code https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/23/the-probl... Edit: salient quotes from the article: "Here’s a different way of thinking about [the trolley] problem: if you wanted to design a car that intentionally murdered its driver under certain circumstances, how would you make sure that the driver never altered its programming so that they could be assured that their property would never intentionally murder them?" "If self-driving cars can only be safe if we are sure no one can reconfigure them without manufacturer approval, then they will never be safe." "Your relationship to the car you ride in, but do not own, makes all the problems mentioned even harder."

794CD01 11y ago

People in general don't willingly prioritize their own safety at the expense of convenience. That's why cars beep when you don't buckle your seatbelt. That's why people drink soda and eat fast food.