3 ms·
> On what grounds do you have to argue that we shouldn't be pessimistic about the state of autonomous driving? I didn't say that. I'm not saying autonomous ca
by kerkeslager 9y ago
> On what grounds do you have to argue that we shouldn't be pessimistic about the state of autonomous driving?
I didn't say that.
I'm not saying autonomous cars are safer, I'm saying that this accident doesn't prove autonomous cars are less safe.
> That you pulled out the IIHS stats without apparently bothering to look up the number of reported self-driving miles driven seems to suggest that you assumed that the fatality rate was obviously skewed against human driving.
I brought up the IIHS stats to show that merely reporting an accident in isolation from a full statistical model doesn't prove anything.
- danso 9y agoOK. And the person you responded to with the fatality stats said nothing about proving which way either: > That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when someone walks out into the road. Sounds like Uber's platform may not be up to that standard yet, which makes me wonder why they're on public roads.
- kerkeslager 9y agoI'm not sure how you can interpret what you're quoting as saying anything else.
- danso 9y agoThe commenter said it's a "very bad look". Followed by this: > On the other hand, it sounds like it happened very recently; I guess we'll have to wait and see what happened. How in the world do you see that as an assertion of proof.