3 ms·

This is an odd claim to make, since the article doesn't say anything at all about self-driving cars. Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's m

This is an odd claim to make, since the article doesn't say anything at all about self-driving cars. Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's making the point that there is a difference between crashing due to an error in the driver assistance systems and crashing due to encountering a situation that the system is incapable of handling. The tail end of the article states unambiguously that this is not an acceptable state of affairs, and that the next generation of driver assistance systems needs to take a different approach. As to whether this article is really a stealth advertisement for GM's Super Cruise technology, well... yeah, it probably is. But I still found it informative as to the current state of driver assistance systems. I was not aware that the cruise control, lane keeping, and automatic braking systems were generally completely independent of each other.

joe_the_user 8y ago
Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's making the point that there is a difference between crashing due to an error in the driver assistance systems and crashing due to encountering a situation that the system is incapable of handling. Well, that point is most likely lost on someone who dies in a crash of these cars. IE, the difference is big from some viewpoints but irrelevant from others. I think we can see the point where objections to self-driving cars start to become strong. It's not some cooked-up version of the "trolley car problem" but a situation where a self-driving car does something a human observer naturally interprets as "wrong" and "dumb", does it in a way that kills someone and the designers give the answer "sorry, not a mistake, just a necessary design compromise. This is still, on-average safer than a human". I think this would produce a strong emotional effect regardless of any "generally safer" assertion.
- rcthompson 8y ago
  Knowing the difference is important because in one case, you need to fix a bug, and in the other case, you need to design a new system (or decide that the problem is unfixable and give up).
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    How do you un-kill a dead driver with a software release or a new design spec? A person is dead mainly due to the presence of a driver-assist system, this is unquestionable.
    - rcthompson 8y ago
      Who was questioning it? Who was suggesting that it was possible to undo a death that has already happened? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. All I'm saying is that the distinction is important from the perspective of someone who wants to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of someone who is in charge of making the laws and regulations to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of the people voting for those lawmakers.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's making the point that there is a difference between crashing due to an error in the driver assistance systems and crashing due to encountering a situation that the system is incapable of handling. Well, that point is most likely lost on someone who dies in a crash of these cars. IE, the difference is big from some viewpoints but irrelevant from others. I think we can see the point where objections to self-driving cars start to become strong. It's not some cooked-up version of the "trolley car problem" but a situation where a self-driving car does something a human observer naturally interprets as "wrong" and "dumb", does it in a way that kills someone and the designers give the answer "sorry, not a mistake, just a necessary design compromise. This is still, on-average safer than a human". I think this would produce a strong emotional effect regardless of any "generally safer" assertion.

rcthompson 8y ago
Knowing the difference is important because in one case, you need to fix a bug, and in the other case, you need to design a new system (or decide that the problem is unfixable and give up).
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  How do you un-kill a dead driver with a software release or a new design spec? A person is dead mainly due to the presence of a driver-assist system, this is unquestionable.
  - rcthompson 8y ago
    Who was questioning it? Who was suggesting that it was possible to undo a death that has already happened? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. All I'm saying is that the distinction is important from the perspective of someone who wants to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of someone who is in charge of making the laws and regulations to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of the people voting for those lawmakers.