3 ms·

Won't accept which - that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable, or that the ratio will be 10:1 (or better) in favour of computer-dr

by Jedd 9y ago

Won't accept which - that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable, or that the ratio will be 10:1 (or better) in favour of computer-driven cars in terms of fatalities? I'd agree that if we aren't seeing better fatality numbers, people won't accept it -- but there's little to suggest that humans are a difficult target to beat. Especially in the US, where car-related fatalities are so numerous and much of the research and trials are being done. Working out accountability for fatalities is already a hugely complicated process, involving an unhealthy number of law enforcement and legal personnel. The problem of identifying responsible party for a - as you put it - failed algorithm doesn't seem intractable, and certainly isn't a show-stopper. Haven't voted either way on this thread, but I suspect your re-hashing of regular topics already resolved is the problem.

kelnos 9y ago
Not the OP, but: I don't believe people will accept that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable. People have this weird psychological effect around control. They will accept higher failure rates if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that they have control over a situation. Or rather, they will believe that they can beat the statistics at least for themselves, as long as they believe they have control over the situation, and achieve a lower failure rate then the driverless car. In other words, "the higher failure rate might apply to the average person, but I'm above average". It's related to faulty risk assessment: it's much more likely that you'll get in a car and die than it is that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, but most people don't even think of getting into a car as all that risky, and yet we start drawn-out, unwinnable wars because people are afraid of terrorism. People believe that they personally won't die in a car crash because they have control of the situation and that they're a good driver, but they have no control over when or where a terrorist attack will take place, so it's somehow a worse threat.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Well, half of people are above-average though. Maybe the people who you talk to are just all above-average.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by Jedd 9y ago

kelnos 9y ago

Not the OP, but: I don't believe people will accept that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable. People have this weird psychological effect around control. They will accept higher failure rates if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that they have control over a situation. Or rather, they will believe that they can beat the statistics at least for themselves, as long as they believe they have control over the situation, and achieve a lower failure rate then the driverless car. In other words, "the higher failure rate might apply to the average person, but I'm above average". It's related to faulty risk assessment: it's much more likely that you'll get in a car and die than it is that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, but most people don't even think of getting into a car as all that risky, and yet we start drawn-out, unwinnable wars because people are afraid of terrorism. People believe that they personally won't die in a car crash because they have control of the situation and that they're a good driver, but they have no control over when or where a terrorist attack will take place, so it's somehow a worse threat.

Danihan 9y ago
Well, half of people are above-average though. Maybe the people who you talk to are just all above-average.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]