4 ms·
This is a bad analogy. I don't think there's really any question as to whether driverless cars in the long term are going to be good. The only question is when
by eridius 10y ago
This is a bad analogy. I don't think there's really any question as to whether driverless cars in the long term are going to be good. The only question is when they'll be good enough to start using en mass. And the point the article is making is that, unlike wonder drugs, driverless cars will be constantly improving themselves while being used. So if you start using driverless cars at the point where they're expected to be marginally safer than the average driver, then in a very short amount of time they should become significantly better than the average driver (and should still keep improving).
- brokenmachine 10y agoYou can't just go updating critical safety software on a driverless car remotely all the time. Each update will need to be tested and approved for safety for every vehicle it needs to run on. Also companies will understandably be unwilling to share their data with competitors, and the data is probably not translatable between companies anyway.
- legolas2412 10y agoThis is actually a good analogy. Driverless cars will be good, but what one company claims as driverless car technology might not ever be good. For example you need complex machine learning algorithms (Well I guess even a naive bayes will do) for facial recognition. But facial recognition cannot be solved by some hardcoded logic like checking the relative sizes of two circles and a cylinder you assumed as eyes and nose. Like this example, it's possible self driving car is far difficult than just adaptive cruise control, or Tesla's radar looking two cars ahead etc. These are minor hardcoded logic and is no guarantee of solving the problem. Plus, a bad pharmaceutical drug only harms the user, a dangerous car on the road is dangerous to people who don't want them.