3 ms·

If you are any example, then the reservations are unreasonable and there's plenty of precedent for ignoring them. We didn't ban vaccines because a handful of p

by jfrisby 10y ago

If you are any example, then the reservations are unreasonable and there's plenty of precedent for ignoring them. We didn't ban vaccines because a handful of people are harmed, and we're not reconsidering their use because a bunch of mathematically illiterate loons think they're more dangerous than the alternative. Frankly, there's more reason to ban PEOPLE from being able to drive a car than to ban AIs from driving them -- if only because AIs can be improved and people cannot. All the ignorance of probability, moral philosophy, economics and law will not change the fact that the posture you are arguing from is one of preserving a status quo that costs dozens of people their lives every day.

archagon 10y ago
Sigh. OK, look. Your inflammatory rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to warn against, but I guess self-driving cars are part of the political shitpile now, too. It's a shame that important issues like this seemingly cannot be discussed without resorting to tribalism and name-calling. We're not in your imaginary super-safe self-driving future yet, and if lives are to be carelessly sacrificed as stepping stones on the way there — because Tesla decided to beta test some dangerous software on actual, real-life roads — it is never going to happen. No matter how much of a utilitarian benefit there might be in the long run.
- jfrisby 10y ago
  Nobody who works on safety-critical systems is an idiot incapable of imagining or caring about the consequences of their errors. Your ignorant, fact-free fear-mongering is antithetical to saving lives. 1. An immense number of lives are being "carelessly sacrificed" right now, and will continue to be sacrificed every day until something comes along to fix the fundamental problem: People are terrible drivers. 2. Tesla's system did not override control of the vehicle. It was not presented as being safe or ready to operate without oversight. The law does not allow for it to be treated as such. The driver failed to hit the brakes despite being told by the car -- and by legal obligation -- that it was his responsibility to hit the brakes. 3. Tesla's system has proven to be safer than the average, unassisted driver, to date. If the proportion of accidents involving Tesla's autopilot remained constant when scaling up to more drivers and more miles, then it would be a net win in terms of lives saved to deploy it widely right now. Obviously though, nobody -- including Tesla -- expects that to be the case, or they'd have been touting this as something every driver should have RIGHT NOW. Tesla is doing their public beta precisely because it's impossible to design a safety-critical system with perfect foresight. More information is needed to help them build a robust system and the public beta has proven to be an uncommonly safe and effective way to get that information. If you think my rhetoric is inflammatory it's because you're blind to the logical consequences -- the human cost -- of what you advocate for.

by jfrisby 10y ago

archagon 10y ago

Sigh. OK, look. Your inflammatory rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to warn against, but I guess self-driving cars are part of the political shitpile now, too. It's a shame that important issues like this seemingly cannot be discussed without resorting to tribalism and name-calling. We're not in your imaginary super-safe self-driving future yet, and if lives are to be carelessly sacrificed as stepping stones on the way there — because Tesla decided to beta test some dangerous software on actual, real-life roads — it is never going to happen. No matter how much of a utilitarian benefit there might be in the long run.

jfrisby 10y ago
Nobody who works on safety-critical systems is an idiot incapable of imagining or caring about the consequences of their errors. Your ignorant, fact-free fear-mongering is antithetical to saving lives. 1. An immense number of lives are being "carelessly sacrificed" right now, and will continue to be sacrificed every day until something comes along to fix the fundamental problem: People are terrible drivers. 2. Tesla's system did not override control of the vehicle. It was not presented as being safe or ready to operate without oversight. The law does not allow for it to be treated as such. The driver failed to hit the brakes despite being told by the car -- and by legal obligation -- that it was his responsibility to hit the brakes. 3. Tesla's system has proven to be safer than the average, unassisted driver, to date. If the proportion of accidents involving Tesla's autopilot remained constant when scaling up to more drivers and more miles, then it would be a net win in terms of lives saved to deploy it widely right now. Obviously though, nobody -- including Tesla -- expects that to be the case, or they'd have been touting this as something every driver should have RIGHT NOW. Tesla is doing their public beta precisely because it's impossible to design a safety-critical system with perfect foresight. More information is needed to help them build a robust system and the public beta has proven to be an uncommonly safe and effective way to get that information. If you think my rhetoric is inflammatory it's because you're blind to the logical consequences -- the human cost -- of what you advocate for.