4 ms·

> In the U.S. I'm not even sure what such a mechanism would look like? How could you enforce this? Some entity produces the data that finds roads unfit for dri

by beager 9y ago

> In the U.S. I'm not even sure what such a mechanism would look like? How could you enforce this? Some entity produces the data that finds roads unfit for driving based on weather and publishes it, local governments consume that data and institute a driving ban, non-essential personnel cannot drive or they'll get a citation. > I don't understand this mentality out-of-hand, especially because I've been in cars that have had mechanical failures. There is no mechanical system that is perfectly reliable, and I'm not sure we're considering the emergent effects of this properly. Correct, but I believe that a well-conceived autonomous car has a much higher standard of proper operation than a human, so even if there were mechanical problems, I'd trust the autonomous car to halt operation before the human. I also don't really understand your last point so sorry for not addressing it.

ntsplnkv2 9y ago
> so even if there were mechanical problems, I'd trust the autonomous car to halt operation before the human. Unless there was a problem with the halt override.
- Retric 9y ago
  Perfection is not the comparison, as long as they do better than human in the event of a failure it's a net win. Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different?
  - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
    It will probably not win head to head with a human if the halt override fails, that's the point. > Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different? Both are so slim who really cares?
    - Retric 9y ago
      Ahh, but you are assuming failure. What if the human has a stroke? Really, you must compare failure rates and severity on both sides. Looking at say aircraft, autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots and spend vastly more time flying aircraft.
      - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        We have been building cars for quite some time now, and yet there are still millions of recalls year after year. The idea that IT can solve physical problems is so pervasive on this site. > autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots How often do pilots really cause crashes, though? In the sense that it's the pilots fault-more often than not, it isn't. Most crashes are not the result of pilot failure in normal operation-but pilot failure in situations out of their control. It's hard to blame a pilot when an engine cuts out (a mechanical failure). my point is not that automated cars are never going to work. But it's just a utopia on here, about how all of our problems will be solved. Computers can't beat physics.

by beager 9y ago

ntsplnkv2 9y ago

> so even if there were mechanical problems, I'd trust the autonomous car to halt operation before the human. Unless there was a problem with the halt override.

Retric 9y ago
Perfection is not the comparison, as long as they do better than human in the event of a failure it's a net win. Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different?
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  It will probably not win head to head with a human if the halt override fails, that's the point. > Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different? Both are so slim who really cares?
  - Retric 9y ago
    Ahh, but you are assuming failure. What if the human has a stroke? Really, you must compare failure rates and severity on both sides. Looking at say aircraft, autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots and spend vastly more time flying aircraft.
    - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
      We have been building cars for quite some time now, and yet there are still millions of recalls year after year. The idea that IT can solve physical problems is so pervasive on this site. > autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots How often do pilots really cause crashes, though? In the sense that it's the pilots fault-more often than not, it isn't. Most crashes are not the result of pilot failure in normal operation-but pilot failure in situations out of their control. It's hard to blame a pilot when an engine cuts out (a mechanical failure). my point is not that automated cars are never going to work. But it's just a utopia on here, about how all of our problems will be solved. Computers can't beat physics.