4 ms·

I think there's a positive feedback loop in there too... As cars go autonomous, they'll communicate faster, drive more predictably, and generally be safer. At

I think there's a positive feedback loop in there too... As cars go autonomous, they'll communicate faster, drive more predictably, and generally be safer. At some point - 1%, 5%, 20%? - the network as a whole will benefit with less accidents and less of the resulting delays which means human drivers will be less likely to be late which takes away anxiety and potential distractions, making it even safer. Therefore, I think these "Do I kill A or B?" scenarios become less frequent over time. I just hope that "over time" part happens quickly... or the first "bad" choice by an autonomous car will delay the industry by years.

kordless 10y ago
It's all about perspective. If 1M people a year die in auto accidents and you improve that by dropping it to 100K a year, you've done something worthwhile with technology. But, once it's 100K, taking it to 10K deaths a year is 10X as hard of a problem. Etc. What I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns on eliminating all accidents, unless you are continuously elevating someone's life to an infinite value (your own, for example). Is our expectation at some point that ZERO people of INFINITE value die shuttling themselves physically around this planet every a year? I'd be willing to accept a small chance of death (by contract even) if I always got to my appointments on time. Think of it as a fancy donor card.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Is the second 90% reduction really 10X as hard as the first 90% reduction? That doesn't seem at all obvious to me. Sure, each 100 death reduction is harder, but the pace of progress seems it should be about a straight line when graphed semi-log.
weaksauce 10y ago
just like Fukushima/Chernobyl/three mile island has slowed the enthusiasm for nuclear energy even though it's safer than coal overall.
rimantas 10y ago
What prevents to deploy these systems (e.g. start braking if on collision course) whith human still under the wheel?
- zwily 10y ago
  Nothing - there are already several cars that do it.

kordless 10y ago

It's all about perspective. If 1M people a year die in auto accidents and you improve that by dropping it to 100K a year, you've done something worthwhile with technology. But, once it's 100K, taking it to 10K deaths a year is 10X as hard of a problem. Etc. What I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns on eliminating all accidents, unless you are continuously elevating someone's life to an infinite value (your own, for example). Is our expectation at some point that ZERO people of INFINITE value die shuttling themselves physically around this planet every a year? I'd be willing to accept a small chance of death (by contract even) if I always got to my appointments on time. Think of it as a fancy donor card.

sokoloff 10y ago
Is the second 90% reduction really 10X as hard as the first 90% reduction? That doesn't seem at all obvious to me. Sure, each 100 death reduction is harder, but the pace of progress seems it should be about a straight line when graphed semi-log.

weaksauce 10y ago

just like Fukushima/Chernobyl/three mile island has slowed the enthusiasm for nuclear energy even though it's safer than coal overall.

rimantas 10y ago

What prevents to deploy these systems (e.g. start braking if on collision course) whith human still under the wheel?

zwily 10y ago
Nothing - there are already several cars that do it.