3 ms·

Reminds me about this comment a few weeks ago (which made an impression on me) : >'How low has the SW development bar gone, if "it's okay" now means "at least

by nonbel 9y ago

Reminds me about this comment a few weeks ago (which made an impression on me) : >'How low has the SW development bar gone, if "it's okay" now means "at least it's not directly killing people"?' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16541235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16541235 We now see the standard has slipped to: "Is the death of one person relatively so bad? People die every day." Next a large crowd of people will be killed and the standard will become: "It's not so bad compared to creating skynet or starting thermonuclear war." I'm not sure what comes after that.

dwighttk 9y ago
"It's not so bad compared to the alternative" I mean, we two are still capable of discussing it, at least!
milankovic 9y ago
Interesting, isn't it? But if you think about it, that's not a pattern anyone should be unfamiliar with. History is full of it. I don't know, I really have no strong opinion here. But I think stuff like this is truly fascinating. There seems no end to where rationalization can go. Welcome to the ambivalence of reality...
jerbs 9y ago
I don't think the people arguing for a different standard are saying that it is ok for one person to die because people die every day. They're asking for observers to look at self-driving cars in comparison to human-driven cars. Because people dying is such a bad thing that we want to prevent, the relevant question should always be, "will this change make it more or less likely that somebody will die." And that is why it is relevant to compare pedestrian deaths from self-driving cars to pedestrian deaths from human-driven cars, but not relevant to compare it to skynet or thermonuclear war. I don't know, however, how that comparison turns out. From the other comments, it looks like Uber's self-driving cars might be less safe than human-driven cars--in which case you and I would end up on the same side of the argument.
- nonbel 9y ago
  Sure, but in the oculus rift comparison someone could have easily died because the VR surgery equipment failed for a reason so stupid as a certificate expiring during surgery. You can make the same argument that people die in non-VR surgery all the time so it is no such a big deal.
  - jerbs 9y ago
    You're absolutely right that designers, regulators and, in some cases, courts should take every death (and accident/near miss) seriously. But it seems to me like there are two questions here. The first question is, "should we have self-driving cars?" and the second is "how can we make those cars as safe as possible?" When people say, "compare it to a human driver," they are suggesting a way to answer the first question, not the second. And that does not mean that they think the second question is "no big deal."
  - jerbs 9y ago
    It's also worth noting that the quote he presented from the Oculus Rift thread was criticizing someone for pointing out that it is less concerning if surgical training equipment crashes than if surgical equipment crashes, not for saying that it is no big deal if someone dies in surgery. I didn't see anyone in that thread saying it would be ok for VR surgery equipment to fail.

by nonbel 9y ago

dwighttk 9y ago

"It's not so bad compared to the alternative" I mean, we two are still capable of discussing it, at least!

milankovic 9y ago

Interesting, isn't it? But if you think about it, that's not a pattern anyone should be unfamiliar with. History is full of it. I don't know, I really have no strong opinion here. But I think stuff like this is truly fascinating. There seems no end to where rationalization can go. Welcome to the ambivalence of reality...

jerbs 9y ago

I don't think the people arguing for a different standard are saying that it is ok for one person to die because people die every day. They're asking for observers to look at self-driving cars in comparison to human-driven cars. Because people dying is such a bad thing that we want to prevent, the relevant question should always be, "will this change make it more or less likely that somebody will die." And that is why it is relevant to compare pedestrian deaths from self-driving cars to pedestrian deaths from human-driven cars, but not relevant to compare it to skynet or thermonuclear war. I don't know, however, how that comparison turns out. From the other comments, it looks like Uber's self-driving cars might be less safe than human-driven cars--in which case you and I would end up on the same side of the argument.

nonbel 9y ago
Sure, but in the oculus rift comparison someone could have easily died because the VR surgery equipment failed for a reason so stupid as a certificate expiring during surgery. You can make the same argument that people die in non-VR surgery all the time so it is no such a big deal.
- jerbs 9y ago
  You're absolutely right that designers, regulators and, in some cases, courts should take every death (and accident/near miss) seriously. But it seems to me like there are two questions here. The first question is, "should we have self-driving cars?" and the second is "how can we make those cars as safe as possible?" When people say, "compare it to a human driver," they are suggesting a way to answer the first question, not the second. And that does not mean that they think the second question is "no big deal."
- jerbs 9y ago
  It's also worth noting that the quote he presented from the Oculus Rift thread was criticizing someone for pointing out that it is less concerning if surgical training equipment crashes than if surgical equipment crashes, not for saying that it is no big deal if someone dies in surgery. I didn't see anyone in that thread saying it would be ok for VR surgery equipment to fail.