4 ms·

It only needs to be a better driver than you for you to be safer, and its that already. I can guarantee you that on a one to one driving skills shootout betwee

It only needs to be a better driver than you for you to be safer, and its that already. I can guarantee you that on a one to one driving skills shootout between you and the software you will loose 98% of the time.

walrus1066 10y ago
Sure, but put a tumbleweed in front of the driverless car and it's stuck. Or wood with a nail sticking out/generic movable obstacle, a human can remove it, the auto-car cannot.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  Yea so ? Harping on the 2% issues does not negate the benefit you have the rest of the time: It can swerve in microseconds, you cannot. How many times will your nail removal skills save you or your kids live compared to software that knows that rolling the car to the left have a 87.34 better chance of occupants survival that the head-on collision with the truck that just swerved in 0.4 seconds ago ? Forget it, driver-less s cars will be the norm in the future. You won't be able to afford the insurance associated with a meat-driven car.
  - walrus1066 10y ago
    My nail removal skill will prevent gridlock on the road. If an auto-car gets confused due to a 2% issue, it becomes a brick, clogging the road. If multiple auto-cars do this in a city, the result is standstill.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
      You make it sound like people are gonna be strapped into their autonomous vehicle like Hannibal Lector. Seriously, a couple pieces of debris are not some thing where we go "oh crap, we're done, guess the whole city will just sit here all day."
- taneq 10y ago
  Can it not drive around the tumbleweed? Or, if it's completely walled in by them, make an assessment of their density and likely harm caused, and decide to just run over them? If we're crediting the car with being able to handle merging into a crowded multi-lane highway and dealing with idiot human drivers who don't indicate or hold lane position very well, it seems a bit odd to arbitrarily presume that it won't be able to identify non-hazards like said tumbleweed.
marssaxman 10y ago
That may well be the case, but it does not follow that a 98%-complete self-driving car would actually be a viable product. It's not good enough that the robot can beat a human in a head-to-head skills test; the robot also has to be as versatile as a human, across an unpredictably wide range of circumstances. That's hard.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  If a autonomous car can pass a standard driving test it should be allowed to drive. They always do, every time.
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    Depending on where you live, "can pass a standard driving test" isn't necessarily saying very much. In any case, I'm not talking about whether it "should be allowed to drive", I'm talking about the level of capability an autonomous car would have to reach in order to become a viable product.
    - ageofwant 10y ago
      No its not, that is kind of my point. It only needs to be better at driving than the average human to be technically viable. And yes, it may very well be allowed on Indian or Chinese roads before its allowed in America, but that's human fiction at work not demonstrable ability.
      - marssaxman 10y ago
        I'm not talking about technical viability! I'm talking about product viability. Can this hypothetical device be manufactured and sold for a profit? Can it be used, profitably, for some purpose, for which it will be cheaper or in some way preferable to existing solutions? It is not enough that this autonomous car can drive around the block without crashing; it has to be good enough, reliable enough, efficient enough, that you can build a profitable business around the unique service it can provide. That is much harder than simply passing a standard driving test.
legolas2412 10y ago
Yes, a computer drives better than me. But that's not it's competition. Does it drive better than me driving while being supervised continuously by a computer? I still make the important decisions, and my mistakes are pointed out by the computer. The competition for self driving cars are not humans, but humans being adviced by driver assistance programmes
- ageofwant 10y ago
  No sure why you make that distinction, or what the benefit of that will be. I want to read HN on the back seat on the way to work, not "supervise" the driving appliance.
  - londons_explore 10y ago
    Op has a good point. You might want to read the web in the back seat, but if you supervising the computer makes it safer, will the public let you doze in the back seat putting your life and the lives of others at increased risk?
    - ageofwant 10y ago
      If I have to supervise, there is no point. Having a human intervene in what should be 100% automated is putting my life and others at risk. Look at road death statistics: the vast bulk of incidents are are caused by humans sucking at driving - why should anyone want to continue doing that ?
      - legolas2412 10y ago
        I would say that humans should drive and computers should supervise and correct obvious mistakes, that however is status quo right now. It doesn't sell as futuristic fiction

walrus1066 10y ago

Sure, but put a tumbleweed in front of the driverless car and it's stuck. Or wood with a nail sticking out/generic movable obstacle, a human can remove it, the auto-car cannot.

ageofwant 10y ago
Yea so ? Harping on the 2% issues does not negate the benefit you have the rest of the time: It can swerve in microseconds, you cannot. How many times will your nail removal skills save you or your kids live compared to software that knows that rolling the car to the left have a 87.34 better chance of occupants survival that the head-on collision with the truck that just swerved in 0.4 seconds ago ? Forget it, driver-less s cars will be the norm in the future. You won't be able to afford the insurance associated with a meat-driven car.
- walrus1066 10y ago
  My nail removal skill will prevent gridlock on the road. If an auto-car gets confused due to a 2% issue, it becomes a brick, clogging the road. If multiple auto-cars do this in a city, the result is standstill.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
    You make it sound like people are gonna be strapped into their autonomous vehicle like Hannibal Lector. Seriously, a couple pieces of debris are not some thing where we go "oh crap, we're done, guess the whole city will just sit here all day."
taneq 10y ago
Can it not drive around the tumbleweed? Or, if it's completely walled in by them, make an assessment of their density and likely harm caused, and decide to just run over them? If we're crediting the car with being able to handle merging into a crowded multi-lane highway and dealing with idiot human drivers who don't indicate or hold lane position very well, it seems a bit odd to arbitrarily presume that it won't be able to identify non-hazards like said tumbleweed.

marssaxman 10y ago

That may well be the case, but it does not follow that a 98%-complete self-driving car would actually be a viable product. It's not good enough that the robot can beat a human in a head-to-head skills test; the robot also has to be as versatile as a human, across an unpredictably wide range of circumstances. That's hard.

ageofwant 10y ago
If a autonomous car can pass a standard driving test it should be allowed to drive. They always do, every time.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  Depending on where you live, "can pass a standard driving test" isn't necessarily saying very much. In any case, I'm not talking about whether it "should be allowed to drive", I'm talking about the level of capability an autonomous car would have to reach in order to become a viable product.
  - ageofwant 10y ago
    No its not, that is kind of my point. It only needs to be better at driving than the average human to be technically viable. And yes, it may very well be allowed on Indian or Chinese roads before its allowed in America, but that's human fiction at work not demonstrable ability.
    - marssaxman 10y ago
      I'm not talking about technical viability! I'm talking about product viability. Can this hypothetical device be manufactured and sold for a profit? Can it be used, profitably, for some purpose, for which it will be cheaper or in some way preferable to existing solutions? It is not enough that this autonomous car can drive around the block without crashing; it has to be good enough, reliable enough, efficient enough, that you can build a profitable business around the unique service it can provide. That is much harder than simply passing a standard driving test.

legolas2412 10y ago

Yes, a computer drives better than me. But that's not it's competition. Does it drive better than me driving while being supervised continuously by a computer? I still make the important decisions, and my mistakes are pointed out by the computer. The competition for self driving cars are not humans, but humans being adviced by driver assistance programmes

ageofwant 10y ago
No sure why you make that distinction, or what the benefit of that will be. I want to read HN on the back seat on the way to work, not "supervise" the driving appliance.
- londons_explore 10y ago
  Op has a good point. You might want to read the web in the back seat, but if you supervising the computer makes it safer, will the public let you doze in the back seat putting your life and the lives of others at increased risk?
  - ageofwant 10y ago
    If I have to supervise, there is no point. Having a human intervene in what should be 100% automated is putting my life and others at risk. Look at road death statistics: the vast bulk of incidents are are caused by humans sucking at driving - why should anyone want to continue doing that ?
    - legolas2412 10y ago
      I would say that humans should drive and computers should supervise and correct obvious mistakes, that however is status quo right now. It doesn't sell as futuristic fiction