3 ms·

Totally agree on your premise that we can rationalize humans killing humans - but we cannot do so with machines killing humans. If self-driving cars really are

by anonu 9y ago

Totally agree on your premise that we can rationalize humans killing humans - but we cannot do so with machines killing humans. If self-driving cars really are safer in the long-run for drivers and pedestrians - maybe what people need is a better grasp on probability and statistics? And self-driving car companies need to show and publicize the data that backs this claim up to win the trust of the population.

falcolas 9y ago
If a human kills a human, we have someone in the direct chain of command that we can punish. If an algorithm kills a person... who do we punish? How do we punish them in a severe enough way to encourage making things better? Perhaps, similar to airline crashes, we should expect Uber to pay out to the family, plus a penalty fine. 1m per death? 2? What price to we put on a life?
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  It's not just about punishment though. It's about our brains being (mostly) good at saying "well they were unlucky, but I'd never find myself in that situation, so I'm OK." And with some brains wired for anxiety doing the opposite and instead only thinking about how they are the ones that would be in all those situations.
- drewmol 9y ago
  >How do we punish them in a severe enough way to encourage making things better? This is a tough problem, but if we stop or limit the allocation of resources to protect the secretive intellectual property that is autonomoilusly running people over, that is the most effective incentive I can see. Plus it's pretty easy to do. We don't even have to force them to disclose anything, by affording less legal protection, their employees will open-source it for us.
rebuilder 9y ago
I'd be surprised if you could educate this problem away just by publishing statistics. Generally, people don't seem to integrate statistics well on an emotional level, but do make decisions based on emotional considerations. I mean, people play the lottery. That's a guaranteed loss, statistically speaking. In fact, it's my understanding that, where I live, you're more likely to get hit by a (human-operated) car on your way to get your lottery ticket than you are to win any significant amount of money. But still people brave death for a barely-existent chance at winning money!
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Hm, people are fine with folks getting mauled in an industrial accident, or killed misusing power equipment. So its not purely a machine thing. Maybe because its unexpected - the victim is not involved until they are dead?
- naasking 9y ago
  The innocent bystander is indeed the reason. People working with machinery accept certain risks.
  - martyvis 9y ago
    Pedestrians and cyclists ( and car occupants for that matter) accept risks near or on roads. You expect that at least 1. drivers are vigilant and cars are maintained so the 2. brakes don't fail or 3. wheels don't fall off. Yet in my life I have eyewitnessed all 3 of those assumptions being wrong at least once.
tjoff 9y ago
It's a sense of control. I as a pedestrian (or driver) can understand and take precautions against human drivers. If I'm alert I can instantly see in my peripheral vision if a car is behaving oddly. That way I can seriously reduce the risk of an accident and reduce the consequences in the very most cases. If the road was filled with self-driving cars there would be less accidents but I wouldn't understand them and with that comes distrust. Freak accidents without explanations are not going to cut it. Also, my gut feeling says this was a preventable accident that only happened because of many layers of poor judgement. I hope I'm wrong but that is seriously what I think of self-driving attempts in public so far. Irresponsible.
RoyTyrell 9y ago
> maybe what people need is a better grasp on probability and statistics Definitely, though my interpretation of your statement is "self driving cars have only killed a couple people ever but human cars have killed hundreds of thousands". If that's correct, that's not going to win anyone over nor is it necessarily correct. While the state of AZ definitely has some responsibility for allowing testing of the cars on their roads, Uber needs (imo) to be able to prove the bug that caused the accident was so much of an edge case that they couldn't easily have been able to foresee it. Are they even testing this shit on private tracks as much as possible before releasing anything on public roads? How much are they ensuring a human driver is paying attention?
avip 9y ago
If you ask me which one is coming first, Quantum computing or "better grasp of probability and statistics" among the general public - I take the first with 99% confidence.

by anonu 9y ago

falcolas 9y ago

If a human kills a human, we have someone in the direct chain of command that we can punish. If an algorithm kills a person... who do we punish? How do we punish them in a severe enough way to encourage making things better? Perhaps, similar to airline crashes, we should expect Uber to pay out to the family, plus a penalty fine. 1m per death? 2? What price to we put on a life?

IgorPartola 9y ago
It's not just about punishment though. It's about our brains being (mostly) good at saying "well they were unlucky, but I'd never find myself in that situation, so I'm OK." And with some brains wired for anxiety doing the opposite and instead only thinking about how they are the ones that would be in all those situations.
drewmol 9y ago
>How do we punish them in a severe enough way to encourage making things better? This is a tough problem, but if we stop or limit the allocation of resources to protect the secretive intellectual property that is autonomoilusly running people over, that is the most effective incentive I can see. Plus it's pretty easy to do. We don't even have to force them to disclose anything, by affording less legal protection, their employees will open-source it for us.

rebuilder 9y ago

I'd be surprised if you could educate this problem away just by publishing statistics. Generally, people don't seem to integrate statistics well on an emotional level, but do make decisions based on emotional considerations. I mean, people play the lottery. That's a guaranteed loss, statistically speaking. In fact, it's my understanding that, where I live, you're more likely to get hit by a (human-operated) car on your way to get your lottery ticket than you are to win any significant amount of money. But still people brave death for a barely-existent chance at winning money!

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

Hm, people are fine with folks getting mauled in an industrial accident, or killed misusing power equipment. So its not purely a machine thing. Maybe because its unexpected - the victim is not involved until they are dead?

naasking 9y ago
The innocent bystander is indeed the reason. People working with machinery accept certain risks.
- martyvis 9y ago
  Pedestrians and cyclists ( and car occupants for that matter) accept risks near or on roads. You expect that at least 1. drivers are vigilant and cars are maintained so the 2. brakes don't fail or 3. wheels don't fall off. Yet in my life I have eyewitnessed all 3 of those assumptions being wrong at least once.

tjoff 9y ago

It's a sense of control. I as a pedestrian (or driver) can understand and take precautions against human drivers. If I'm alert I can instantly see in my peripheral vision if a car is behaving oddly. That way I can seriously reduce the risk of an accident and reduce the consequences in the very most cases. If the road was filled with self-driving cars there would be less accidents but I wouldn't understand them and with that comes distrust. Freak accidents without explanations are not going to cut it. Also, my gut feeling says this was a preventable accident that only happened because of many layers of poor judgement. I hope I'm wrong but that is seriously what I think of self-driving attempts in public so far. Irresponsible.

RoyTyrell 9y ago

> maybe what people need is a better grasp on probability and statistics Definitely, though my interpretation of your statement is "self driving cars have only killed a couple people ever but human cars have killed hundreds of thousands". If that's correct, that's not going to win anyone over nor is it necessarily correct. While the state of AZ definitely has some responsibility for allowing testing of the cars on their roads, Uber needs (imo) to be able to prove the bug that caused the accident was so much of an edge case that they couldn't easily have been able to foresee it. Are they even testing this shit on private tracks as much as possible before releasing anything on public roads? How much are they ensuring a human driver is paying attention?

avip 9y ago

If you ask me which one is coming first, Quantum computing or "better grasp of probability and statistics" among the general public - I take the first with 99% confidence.