3 ms·

> By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better. I don't think this is a fair comparison. The

by quacker 10y ago

> By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better. I don't think this is a fair comparison. There were about ~35000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015[1]. When we have the opportunity to reduce this number to (nearly) zero, the question becomes: is it worth paying 35000 lives to allow our society to satisfy its recreational driving needs? I think the answer is clearly, no. It is one thing for a person to risk their own life base jumping or rock climbing, for example. It is a different thing for others to risk my life (or vice versa) on my way home from work each day. There are plenty safe ways to accommodate demand for recreational driving in a world where humans driving cars is otherwise illegal. You can go to a track, or maybe certain roads could be available for human use, or maybe human driving is allowed only on certain days or hours. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

theincredulousk 10y ago
I was pointing out that the author's logic is hyperbolic and naive, making it seem as if statistically minimizing risk is the only thing that matters to anyone. To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. I do agree it is a problem that we share roads, and many people don't take the risks seriously. People's poor judgement, e.g. using apps on their phone while going 70mph in a 3,000+ lb vehicle is disturbing. Motorcyclists experience things like this vividly, and often daily. Maybe fully automated cars are the only answer to that though, because relying on improving everyone's judgement, or policing it, might be the least realistic solution conceived (for anything). Of course we want to make driving safer, and in that way autonomous capabilities are a ground breaking safety feature. Other cars probably need to be safer too, since we are a very, very long way away from even a simple majority of autonomous cars. Maybe one day we'll see the "end game" of zero-ish road fatalities, but that relatively distant possibility is not a reason to essentially outlaw driving. Keep in mind autonomous cars are also very expensive, and will be for some time. If the "outlaw" part came a bit too early, it could end up looking a lot like "People too poor to buy and maintain a brand-new car are not allowed to drive on public roads". There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that, e.g. since teenager drivers account for a disproportionate number of accidents/injuries, so maybe we don't need high-school kids driving. Or, maybe we need to require extra licensing for a housewife that wants to pilot a 5,500lb Escalade at highway speeds. Maybe people should go to jail instead of paying a tiny fine if they are caught using Social Media while driving. The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.
- quacker 10y ago
  > To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. This is a good contrasting point. I think there is an argument to be had about "winnable" battles, though. It's much easier to police roads than it is to police everyone's home for alcohol, for example. It's easier (I imagine) to smuggle some alcohol from another country than it is to import an illegal vehicle. (Aside: some ~10,000 of those alcohol related deaths involved drunk-driving) I agree that there needs to be a careful timeline for legislation. We shouldn't use legislation to bring about change too early. I do think, though, that the transition to autonomous vehicles could occur gradually. First, you make them capable of self-driving. Then, cars start being manufactured without a steering wheel or pedals. Then, all new cars must not have a steering wheel. Then, once a sufficiently high percentage of vehicles are autonomous and without steering wheels, additional legislation could be considered. This would take decades, of course. > There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that... I'm aware that in countries other than the US (like Germany, IIRC), it is harder (in terms of additional and stricter testing) and more expensive to obtain your driver's license. That is something I don't disagree with. On the other hand, the US is a place which is very reliant on cars to get places: the country is larger and more spread out, public transportation is worse, etc. The ideal aspect of self-driving cars in combination with restricting or outlawing human drivers is people can still own them as they always have (prices will come down and used cars will exist) and it should bring down fatalities in a meaningful way. Additional legislation that may prevent people from getting the license they need to drive to their job would not be required. > The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer. None of this rhetoric convinces me that it is not logical to remove human error from the driving equation.

by quacker 10y ago

theincredulousk 10y ago

I was pointing out that the author's logic is hyperbolic and naive, making it seem as if statistically minimizing risk is the only thing that matters to anyone. To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. I do agree it is a problem that we share roads, and many people don't take the risks seriously. People's poor judgement, e.g. using apps on their phone while going 70mph in a 3,000+ lb vehicle is disturbing. Motorcyclists experience things like this vividly, and often daily. Maybe fully automated cars are the only answer to that though, because relying on improving everyone's judgement, or policing it, might be the least realistic solution conceived (for anything). Of course we want to make driving safer, and in that way autonomous capabilities are a ground breaking safety feature. Other cars probably need to be safer too, since we are a very, very long way away from even a simple majority of autonomous cars. Maybe one day we'll see the "end game" of zero-ish road fatalities, but that relatively distant possibility is not a reason to essentially outlaw driving. Keep in mind autonomous cars are also very expensive, and will be for some time. If the "outlaw" part came a bit too early, it could end up looking a lot like "People too poor to buy and maintain a brand-new car are not allowed to drive on public roads". There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that, e.g. since teenager drivers account for a disproportionate number of accidents/injuries, so maybe we don't need high-school kids driving. Or, maybe we need to require extra licensing for a housewife that wants to pilot a 5,500lb Escalade at highway speeds. Maybe people should go to jail instead of paying a tiny fine if they are caught using Social Media while driving. The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.

quacker 10y ago
> To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen. This is a good contrasting point. I think there is an argument to be had about "winnable" battles, though. It's much easier to police roads than it is to police everyone's home for alcohol, for example. It's easier (I imagine) to smuggle some alcohol from another country than it is to import an illegal vehicle. (Aside: some ~10,000 of those alcohol related deaths involved drunk-driving) I agree that there needs to be a careful timeline for legislation. We shouldn't use legislation to bring about change too early. I do think, though, that the transition to autonomous vehicles could occur gradually. First, you make them capable of self-driving. Then, cars start being manufactured without a steering wheel or pedals. Then, all new cars must not have a steering wheel. Then, once a sufficiently high percentage of vehicles are autonomous and without steering wheels, additional legislation could be considered. This would take decades, of course. > There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that... I'm aware that in countries other than the US (like Germany, IIRC), it is harder (in terms of additional and stricter testing) and more expensive to obtain your driver's license. That is something I don't disagree with. On the other hand, the US is a place which is very reliant on cars to get places: the country is larger and more spread out, public transportation is worse, etc. The ideal aspect of self-driving cars in combination with restricting or outlawing human drivers is people can still own them as they always have (prices will come down and used cars will exist) and it should bring down fatalities in a meaningful way. Additional legislation that may prevent people from getting the license they need to drive to their job would not be required. > The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer. None of this rhetoric convinces me that it is not logical to remove human error from the driving equation.