6 ms·
I really think its the insurance industry that will push AIs into the mainstream. The author makes a good point that humans would rather trust another human wit
by dexwiz 10y ago
I really think its the insurance industry that will push AIs into the mainstream. The author makes a good point that humans would rather trust another human with a 1% error rate than a robot with a .01% error rate, because the robot error is somehow scarier. But actuarial science doesn't care about which is scarier, it cares about the 1% v the .01%.
Malpractice insurance will force doctors to consult AIs. Auto insurance will force us to install automated driving systems. Home insurance will force us to install sensor systems and Echo-like assistants. Insurance costs will rise for those that refuse AIs, and make ignoring them financially irresponsible.
Insurance requirements put all sorts of pressures on industries. Anecdata here, but I know a very successful gynecologist who was forced to sell HIS practice, because the malpractice insurance ate all his profits. The possibility of a sexual misconduct case basically made it impossible for him to be a male gynecologist and carry the requisite insurance, even though he never had a suit filed against him.
- meddlepal 10y agoIt seems tho insurance would shift from inidivudual/user to producer tho. Why would individuals need car insurance with a fully automated vehicle for example.
- dexwiz 10y agoInsurance is all about covering liability. Car manufacturers won't willingly take on all liability after automation. They will still try to shift some onto the consumer. On the other hand, maybe individual auto insurance will eventually go away as automation takes hold. But automation will not happen overnight. The liability in an accident between a human and automated driver will likely be assigned to the human, meaning human based insurance premiums will rise, forcing more people to automation.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- stale2002 10y agoWhy wouldn't they take on the liability? If it costs them so little, because the cars are so much safer you might as well.
- swiley 10y agoThere's still that 0.01% error that something you ultimately own and are therefore responsible for caused (unless they're used like taxi services.)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- qq66 10y agoThe insurance industry doesn't necessarily want that world of no accidents. No accidents means nothing to insure.
- neeleshs 10y agoThe insurance industry wants a world of no accidents, as long as the world does not know its accident-free
- enraged_camel 10y agoHow will the world not know that it's accident-free? Those statistics are freely available.
- neeleshs 10y agoThe comment was on the lighter side, may be a smiley would've done the trick
- cm2187 10y agoParticularly given that in most countries, insurance premiums have to be backed with actuarial calculations. So it will be reasonably transparent, at least to the regulators.
- analog31 10y agoWe will know, when the price of insurance goes down, assuming the market is competitive.
- hugs 10y agoIt won't be accident-free, more likely accident-rare. There will be the occasional accident, but because it is so rare, it will be heavily covered in the media, thus skewing people's perception of the risk. (See: plane crashes)
- 10y ago
- slyall 10y agoI'm not sure. If an insurance company can make a profit by charging me $500/year (random number) for car insurance now why would I be forced by them to switch to a driverless car? Sure the people with driverless cars only pay $100/year but my risk hasn't increased.
- scarmig 10y agoThey'll accurately evaluate risk, as you point out, and many people will have the option of much, much cheaper insurance by using a driverless car. Most people hate driving anyway, so that's a nice cherry on top as they transition to driverless cars. What happens when a majority of people have moved to driverless cars, though? The population of people who want cars that are human driven won't be representative of the general population: they'll be the joy drivers and the risk takers (there's a sexy marketing campaign in there somewhere...). Those people would represent a greater risk than the contemporary human driver, so they would pull up the costs of insurance. But that just drives the marginal human-driver toward automation, leading to a risk spiral until human cars become effectively luxury items. After some disastrous wrecks, the government comes in, rightfully blames the deaths on the small minority of adrenaline junkies who want to drive cars without the guidance and protection of Google, and bans human driven cars from public roads. The next Larry Ellison has a fleet of human-driven cars to drive on her private automobile course, but day-to-day a human driven car is seen as often as a Bugatti.
- DougN7 10y agoI would like to get a non-ACA blessed health insurance policy, but it will literally cost me $8000 more (in fines). $500 is no big deal, but make the cost difference significant and behavior is changed (with some grumbling).