3 ms·
The article is just responding to the level of intelligence of arguments saying we should all soon stop driving and have automated driving everywhere. I am all
by cscurmudgeon 10y ago
The article is just responding to the level of intelligence of arguments saying we should all soon stop driving and have automated driving everywhere.
I am all for self driving cars, but the common statistical argument (lower number of deaths than humans) for them is just silly for a number of reasons.
- whack 10y agoSuch as?
- saulrh 10y agoUntil we figure out immortality, everybody that is born will die. The most effective strategy currently available for preventing deaths, then, is to put an immediate moratorium on births, capping the future total number of deaths at the current world population. If you're going to go the utilitarian route, you need a more complex utility function. Otherwise you end up with really weird badness.
- Draiken 10y agoWhy is that a bad argument? It's a pragmatic approach which I believe to be A LOT BETTER than the status quo. Unfortunately people prefer the current way of implementing things: pretend to make everyone happy because people can't think 5 seconds ahead of time or even imagine that their actions affect others. It's so easy to sell everything for the small, immediate benefits while ignoring the bigger picture.
- cscurmudgeon 10y agoOne reason: you can never calculate that accurately statistically given that the technology involved is extremely complex. Other reasons here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms