5 ms·

But is it really risk analysis if any negative eventuality, no matter how unlikely or infrequent, is a deal-breaker? Risk analysis is exactly that - figuring ou

by Aqueous 10y ago

But is it really risk analysis if any negative eventuality, no matter how unlikely or infrequent, is a deal-breaker? Risk analysis is exactly that - figuring out what the risks are, their likelihoods and potential impacts, and then figuring out which ones are worth taking and which are not. So the salient fact remains the same: deaths with autonomous driving are less than deaths without it. Isn't it unethical to prevent such a feature from going out into the world when it could be saving lives, due to concerns about some unlikely / infrequent eventuality or driver error? Is it sound risk analysis to allow hundreds, thousands of people to die when you have a feature that could save their lives? Cars are inherently unsafe, and yet we let people drive them. Clearly we already (ethically) accept some risk in our products.

etendue 10y ago
> Clearly we already (ethically) accept some risk in our products. We do, when the risk is managed. A key feature of risk management is, after identification of potential risks, the minimization of the occurance probability or the severity to within an acceptable range.
quesera 10y ago
This is all valid analysis, and I agree. But we as engineers have to recognize that the socialization of technology is squishy and illogical. Even if we're correct, and that dispassionate analysis will move society forward, not everyone will agree. And they will have strong arguments, made stronger if we aren't contextually aware. Demonization of tech is very possible. If we want driverless cars and a host of other things in our lifetimes, we have to be approach the socialization with some sensitivity. Brashness is fine, but risky. If it's just a website going down in flames, no one cares. But cars kill people. Brashness will be rewarded with regulations. Possibly shortsighted regulations that do more long term harm than good, because politics. Today, drivers (and mechanical failures) kill people and we have a social structure to deal with that. Tomorrow, cars will kill people in situations where drivers would not have, and where everything is operating according to spec. That's a big change, which not everyone is ready for. And snotty tech billionaires will not be sympathetic characters in the ensuing press/political discourse.

by Aqueous 10y ago

etendue 10y ago

> Clearly we already (ethically) accept some risk in our products. We do, when the risk is managed. A key feature of risk management is, after identification of potential risks, the minimization of the occurance probability or the severity to within an acceptable range.

quesera 10y ago

This is all valid analysis, and I agree. But we as engineers have to recognize that the socialization of technology is squishy and illogical. Even if we're correct, and that dispassionate analysis will move society forward, not everyone will agree. And they will have strong arguments, made stronger if we aren't contextually aware. Demonization of tech is very possible. If we want driverless cars and a host of other things in our lifetimes, we have to be approach the socialization with some sensitivity. Brashness is fine, but risky. If it's just a website going down in flames, no one cares. But cars kill people. Brashness will be rewarded with regulations. Possibly shortsighted regulations that do more long term harm than good, because politics. Today, drivers (and mechanical failures) kill people and we have a social structure to deal with that. Tomorrow, cars will kill people in situations where drivers would not have, and where everything is operating according to spec. That's a big change, which not everyone is ready for. And snotty tech billionaires will not be sympathetic characters in the ensuing press/political discourse.