4 ms·

There’s a simple explanation: You’re getting older, more conservative and more averse to change. It’s ok, it happens. As part of this you’re also likely over

There’s a simple explanation: You’re getting older, more conservative and more averse to change. It’s ok, it happens. As part of this you’re also likely over-estimating the danger and underestimating the benefits. I’m sure every self-driving car death will (and should be) scrutinized heavily. But remember there’s between 30,000 and 50,000 auto deaths every year. I’m betting self-driveing cars will do better.

devwastaken 9y ago
"I’m betting" Thats the problem. How do you know? When you have family, and people you care about, thats not 'conservative'. Thats the reality of being human. If 'change' means that consumers become the testing grounds for unsafe technologies, then yeah, I'll be plenty 'adverse to change'. These technologies do not require people to die to be made.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  Trying to find some good statistics but looking around it seems a majority of accidents end up being caused by human error, distracted driving and drunk driving. AI wouldn't have any of those so I'm personally confident that it'll have a much higher level of safety. The trouble is when we swap "human error" for "machine error". Because humans screw up all the time but a machine is going to fail in a way that'll likely be very obvious to us. That is going to be take an emotional toll, I think, and will be a hurdle to get over for self driving cars. No one wants to be told "sorry but your family died because of a bug in the car's software told it to make a left into a semi".
  - nawitus 9y ago
    "AI wouldn't have any of those so I'm personally confident that it'll have a much higher level of safety." AI and perfect AI are different things.
    - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
      Agreed but that doesn't make my statement incorrect :) I said AI wouldn't have the issues of human error, distracted and drunk driving. It opens up all new types of errors, sure, but it wouldn't have the biggest killers of people. So unless we screw up pretty badly here it almost has to be lower mortality rates.
  - taneq 9y ago
    > Trying to find some good statistics but looking around it seems a majority of accidents end up being caused by human error, distracted driving and drunk driving. This is a big one that most people seem to miss: A self-driving car doesn't have to be better than an alert, conscientious human driver to be better than 90% of the actual complacent, distracted, tired humans on the road.
- jlebar 9y ago
  If we were to slow down the progress of self driving cars, would that not also be a bet on human drivers?
- gowld 9y ago
  Consumers have become the testing grounds for unsafe technologies since the invention of the Model T Ford.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  > "I’m betting" Thats the problem. How do you know? I don't know why I have to point this out, but: betting is different than knowing.

devwastaken 9y ago

"I’m betting" Thats the problem. How do you know? When you have family, and people you care about, thats not 'conservative'. Thats the reality of being human. If 'change' means that consumers become the testing grounds for unsafe technologies, then yeah, I'll be plenty 'adverse to change'. These technologies do not require people to die to be made.

BinaryIdiot 9y ago
Trying to find some good statistics but looking around it seems a majority of accidents end up being caused by human error, distracted driving and drunk driving. AI wouldn't have any of those so I'm personally confident that it'll have a much higher level of safety. The trouble is when we swap "human error" for "machine error". Because humans screw up all the time but a machine is going to fail in a way that'll likely be very obvious to us. That is going to be take an emotional toll, I think, and will be a hurdle to get over for self driving cars. No one wants to be told "sorry but your family died because of a bug in the car's software told it to make a left into a semi".
- nawitus 9y ago
  "AI wouldn't have any of those so I'm personally confident that it'll have a much higher level of safety." AI and perfect AI are different things.
  - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    Agreed but that doesn't make my statement incorrect :) I said AI wouldn't have the issues of human error, distracted and drunk driving. It opens up all new types of errors, sure, but it wouldn't have the biggest killers of people. So unless we screw up pretty badly here it almost has to be lower mortality rates.
- taneq 9y ago
  > Trying to find some good statistics but looking around it seems a majority of accidents end up being caused by human error, distracted driving and drunk driving. This is a big one that most people seem to miss: A self-driving car doesn't have to be better than an alert, conscientious human driver to be better than 90% of the actual complacent, distracted, tired humans on the road.
jlebar 9y ago
If we were to slow down the progress of self driving cars, would that not also be a bet on human drivers?
gowld 9y ago
Consumers have become the testing grounds for unsafe technologies since the invention of the Model T Ford.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
> "I’m betting" Thats the problem. How do you know? I don't know why I have to point this out, but: betting is different than knowing.