3 ms·
This is only news because autonomously driven cars are still so rare.
by hackbinary 10y ago
This is only news because autonomously driven cars are still so rare.
- jsemrau 10y agoIt is mostly we hold automated machines to a higher standard. If 5% of all flights would not arrive would you fly?
- supercoder 10y agoDepends how depressed I was
- victorhooi 10y agoYour comparison doesn't really make sense. If human pilots had a 15% error rate, and autonomous planes had an error rate of 5% - which would you fly? It's basic math - you pick the one that is most likely to get you there safely. Most people have no issues getting into cars - despite the fact that they're one of the largest killers. So we've already established that for most people, the convenience (or their love affair) of cars is enough to overcome the current risk of death/injury - if we could decrease that, is that not surely a net win?
- jacquesm 10y ago> If human pilots had a 15% error rate, and autonomous planes had an error rate of 5% - which would you fly? Neither.
- notahacker 10y agoIf human pilots have an error rate with a large variance, and you can choose your pilot (or fly your own plane) the decision is less clear cut. Especially in a world where human accident statistics include a significant proportion of people exhibiting reckless behaviours that many jurisdictions will take their licenses away or even jail them for. I'd want autonomous cars to be a lot safer than the average human driver before they were allowed on regular roads without a human behind the wheel. In fact, given that humans and machines are likely to make systematically different errors such that the human can solve most of the driving issues that the machine has and the machine can solve most of the driving issues a human has, the case for getting rid of the legally-responsible human driver altogether (humans ought to have the right to be drunk or sending emails whilst in their own vehicle; taxis ought to be cheaper?) isn't particularly strong.
- Spooky23 10y agoI would choose neither. You're making a subjective judgement that humans are fundamentally less safe than autonomous drivers. Like most HN commenters you are making this assertion without any facts, as there isn't sufficient data to make the assertion. Other than drunk driving diversion, the case isn't as clear cut as you may think. If you want to reduce fatalities, reducing SUVs and drunk driving is the end goal, as rollovers and alcohol related crashes are the most preventable fatality sources.
- dtech 10y agoAre you implying that 5% of all car trips result in a fatal crash? That's preposterous.
- jsemrau 10y agoEvery system has a quality of performance. In production (let's say steel) we can produce with a degree of quality. , for statistical models we have a degree of confidence, etc. Every machine we currently build will fail to a certain calculable degree. The less you maintain the machine the higher the degree of failure will be.
- asdfaoeu 10y agoYou are assuming that after this crash their rate is still lower than humans, however it might not be.
- notahacker 10y agoTheir rate is only lower than humans because humans take over whenever the software faces a problem they can't deal with, indicates a problem or behaves erratically. In Uber's case, that happens a little more than once per mile driven http://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-travis-kalanick-self-driving-internal-metrics-slow-progress http://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-travis-kalanic...
- asdfaoeu 10y agoYeah I'd agree, however it was higher than humans then not only is it not currently viable it is unsafe to test on public roads.