4 ms·

>Indeed, the presence of emergency brakes could very well reduce the number of accidents, while at the same time making people rather lazy and eventually _causi

by Nadya 10y ago

>Indeed, the presence of emergency brakes could very well reduce the number of accidents, while at the same time making people rather lazy and eventually _causing_ some. Is there a psychological term for this thought process? The thought process: People killing people is "okay" but people killing (overall) fewer people because they are relying on "emergency auto-brake systems" is "not okay". For me, it is a no brainer to reduce human casualties as much as possible. But it seems others disagree with that if some automated system is responsible for deaths instead of a human. Is it because blame is harder to place?

Silhouette 10y ago
Is it because blame is harder to place? I suspect that's part of it. Another possibility is that in some cases, these systems may outperform an average driver but not a good one. Removing control or judgement from a good driver in favour of the automated system is then an unnecessary loss. Of course, you also have the problem that around 100% of drivers think they are better than average. The above is a reasonable and valid concern for drivers who actually are better than the alternative automated system, but there's also a problem with other drivers who mistakenly believe they are that good and that the automated system will therefore make them and their passengers less safe.
Natanael_L 10y ago
Static risk tolerance + altered risk perception. People are only as careful as they think they need to be, because they're lazy. This causes your behavior baseline to change as a result of new safety measures, perhaps too far in the wrong direction. Found this - procedural drift (aviation): http://www.cognitivesystemsdesign.net/Papers/Johnston%20(2003).pdf http://www.cognitivesystemsdesign.net/Papers/Johnston%20(200...
- Nadya 10y ago
  Not quite what I was thinking of, so I'll make up a scenario and numbers. Take any technology that automates a task. Say it has a 0.00005% failure rate which results in death of a random passerby at the time it occurs. Then take any human being in charge of that same task. Say the risk is 0.05% human error which results in death of a random passerby at the time it occurs. There are people who will argue that the 0.05% is acceptable and will vehemently disagree with and prevent any attempt to switch to the 0.00005% failure rate because the machine killing someone is unacceptable while a human killing 1,000-fold more people is somehow acceptable. Even if human laziness of an assisted (not completely automated) version of the same task had a 0.005% risk it would still be unacceptable when compared with the 100% human-error rate. Morally, I can't wrap my head around the reasoning. More deaths seems to be acceptable as long as some person can be "at fault". The moment the death is "blameless" it cannot be allowed. In other words: 10,000 "someone can be blamed" deaths is better than 10 "who is to blame?" deaths.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    Empathy with the human, fear of change, fear of the unknown, a need to have somebody to blame...

by Nadya 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

Is it because blame is harder to place? I suspect that's part of it. Another possibility is that in some cases, these systems may outperform an average driver but not a good one. Removing control or judgement from a good driver in favour of the automated system is then an unnecessary loss. Of course, you also have the problem that around 100% of drivers think they are better than average. The above is a reasonable and valid concern for drivers who actually are better than the alternative automated system, but there's also a problem with other drivers who mistakenly believe they are that good and that the automated system will therefore make them and their passengers less safe.

Natanael_L 10y ago

Static risk tolerance + altered risk perception. People are only as careful as they think they need to be, because they're lazy. This causes your behavior baseline to change as a result of new safety measures, perhaps too far in the wrong direction. Found this - procedural drift (aviation): http://www.cognitivesystemsdesign.net/Papers/Johnston%20(2003).pdf http://www.cognitivesystemsdesign.net/Papers/Johnston%20(200...

Nadya 10y ago
Not quite what I was thinking of, so I'll make up a scenario and numbers. Take any technology that automates a task. Say it has a 0.00005% failure rate which results in death of a random passerby at the time it occurs. Then take any human being in charge of that same task. Say the risk is 0.05% human error which results in death of a random passerby at the time it occurs. There are people who will argue that the 0.05% is acceptable and will vehemently disagree with and prevent any attempt to switch to the 0.00005% failure rate because the machine killing someone is unacceptable while a human killing 1,000-fold more people is somehow acceptable. Even if human laziness of an assisted (not completely automated) version of the same task had a 0.005% risk it would still be unacceptable when compared with the 100% human-error rate. Morally, I can't wrap my head around the reasoning. More deaths seems to be acceptable as long as some person can be "at fault". The moment the death is "blameless" it cannot be allowed. In other words: 10,000 "someone can be blamed" deaths is better than 10 "who is to blame?" deaths.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  Empathy with the human, fear of change, fear of the unknown, a need to have somebody to blame...