3 ms·
The numbers so far, including human intervention rates do not support the claim that autonomy beats humans. With a limited dataset, the suggestion is very much
by cctt23 9y ago
The numbers so far, including human intervention rates do not support the claim that autonomy beats humans. With a limited dataset, the suggestion is very much in the other direction. These vehicles may someday be better than us, but “someday” isn’t today. In particular I think Uber had a human intervention on avg every 13mi.
Edit: I’d love to hear a counterpoint, although of course I accept that’s not required. Like the discussion about fusion, people seem to argue from a point in the future when all of the problems and limitations of today are gone. Let’s try arguing from what’s possible now instead.
- paul7986 9y agoNot today, but don't worry after these robot cars kill 1000s to more innocent people they will be safer. All those killed will just help us learn to improve and make progress.
- Consultant32452 9y agoIf you haven't heard of it, you may be interested in the trolley dilemma. https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111 https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-ki...
- perl4ever 9y agoThe trolley dilemma is something that people are not very receptive to in real life, because the very fact that someone presents such a dilemma leads to suspicion about the accuracy of the number of lives saved vs. destroyed. The type of mentality that would sacrifice one life to save five is instinctively assumed by a lot of people to be the sort of mentality that would deceive themselves and/or others about the correct statistics and the uncertainty thereof. Assuming the ratio of 1:5 to be accurate and worthwhile is largely missing the real issue, in my opinion.