5 ms·
> I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think tha
by leadingthenet 9y ago
> I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.
Why is it not unreasonable?
- MBCook 9y agoBecause you’re preventing 30k deaths that would have happened but causing 8k that wouldn’t... it seems fair for people to be mad about that 8k. Maybe we shouldn’t have rushed into things until that number was way smaller. ‘Diverless cars cause 30% of road fatalities’ is not a good headline.
- leadingthenet 9y agoIt’s still a huge net reduction in deaths anyway you look at it, and there are huge gains in other areas (speed, covenience). I remain very unmoved by that argument. I’d rather be hit by software than a human. At least I know we did as much as we could to alleviate the problem.
- MBCook 9y agoI’m not arguing it’s perfectly logical. If people behaved that way the sunk cost fallacy wouldn’t exist. I think it would be a real problem. If the death count becomes non-trivial before the death count from people becomes relatively trivial I think there’s will be a big mess in the media.
- gowld 9y agoIt's all in the spin: ‘Drivered cars cause 70% of road fatalities’ is not a good headline for drivers.
- MBCook 9y agoThat’s not new. Right now that number is 100%. People just accept it as status quo. But people would be outraged by the 30% number.