6 ms·

The upside of self driving vehicles is so immense that I can't help but find in favor of giving leeway to companies developing this tech. I would vote legislati

by sgslo 8y ago

The upside of self driving vehicles is so immense that I can't help but find in favor of giving leeway to companies developing this tech. I would vote legislation limiting the accident liability of 'qualified' companies developing self driving tech. No, I don't know what separates 'qualified' from 'not qualified'. Try looking at this a different way: there were 37,461 vehicle related fatalities in 2016 in the US alone. In the current risk-averse climate, would we - over the early 1900's - ever allowed the development of public infrastructure to support an invention leading to so many fatalities? Likely not, but the benefit we enjoy from motorized transportation far outweighs the cost of those 37k yearly lives. The point is that continuing with a risk-averse, liability-obsessed development culture will stifle invention that can otherwise lead to great quality of life improvements.

s2g 8y ago
Or we could not let companies murder people with shitty half baked hardware and software combinations.
dbt00 8y ago
The theorized upside is immense but that doesn't mean the practical difference now is even positive. If Tesla (Uber's already out of the game, probably) wants to keep operating autopilot in public, they owe us actual statistics on safety so that the public can make an informed decision. The private data laundered through the NTSB two years ago is incredibly suspect, and the fatality rate for Tesla since then appears to exceed what the average human piloted car would do.
Semirhage 8y ago
Then you and other people like you can volunteer to work at a test track as obstacles. Leave the rest of us out of it. You’re entitled to your utopian fantasy of what might be, and the best way to express that is to put your life on the line instead of volunteering others to do it. Statements like this seem to be trying to make the point that any amount of increased public risk is unacceptable unless everyone opts in to accept it. No, statements like mine reject the notion that sacrificing lives today for the possibility of an unproven improvement sat some unspecified later date is morally reprehensible. My answer is to invite the person endorsing this to put their own life on the line instead. If we were talking about medical testing on humans instead of cars, maybe it would be easier for some to understand. “It’s so bad today, the only course of action is to act recklessly to improve things as fast as possible!” is a thoroughly rejected argument.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Statements like this seem to be trying to make the point that any amount of increased public risk is unacceptable unless everyone opts in to accept it. I find this argument entirely uncompelling. There are an inordinate amount of risks imposed upon me while operating in society which I neither agreed to nor would I given the choice, aside from in a hand-wavy “social contract” sense. However as a member of society I am in fact compelled to accept myriad risks on a daily basis imposed on me for the benefit of others, or the benefit of potential scientific advancement. This concept that a society cannot morally make risk-reward decisions in the course of technological advancement is entire bunk IMO. Government can absolutely morally make these trade offs and does so constantly. I feel pretty good about the current legal and regulatory frameworks and the technical chops of the NTSB to monitor developments in self-driving R&D adequately. One thing I am certain of is that we absolutely must succeed in developing, productizing, deploying, and ultimately mandating self-driving technology. Millions of lives and trillions of dollars are at stake, and yes, society as a whole will incur individual loss of life in the pursuit of this goal. An attempt to develop the technology with zero risk of collateral damage would in fact cost many more lives overall.
  - dbt00 8y ago
    So far, per mile driven, the fatality rates of Uber and Tesla SDVs are far higher than human drivers in statistically safer than average vehicles. Waymo has a better track record but essentially refuses to drive at significant speed -- I have yet to see a Waymo SDV place itself in a situation with a higher speed limit than 35mph, and I see them a lot.
    - mclehman 8y ago
      I regularly see the Waymo vehicles in 45 mph zones on my commute. I can't say I've seen them go any faster, but I spend about 95% of my time on roads marked 45 mph or less.
  - gascan 8y ago
    See, what I hear you saying is "Other people will needlessly die, but their sacrifice is a chance I am willing to take". The public takes risks every day, but it rarely gives companies a free pass to move fast and kill people.
saalweachter 8y ago
> The upside of self driving vehicles is so immense that I can't help but find in favor of giving leeway to companies developing this tech. This is, frankly, how a lot of scams work. Sure, there are some rough patches and the prototype doesn't work, but imagine when it does ... ! If Theranos had been able to diagnose all diseases from a finger stick, the upside would have been crazy-huge. If the EM drive could generate substantial reactionless thrust, the upside would have been Trekian. If high-deductible health insurance plans discouraged primarily wasteful healthcare spending... If vegetable smoothies...
troupe 8y ago
> I would vote legislation limiting the accident liability of 'qualified' companies developing self driving tech. I'm not sure I agree, but if there were something like this, I think one of the requirements for being 'qualified' would be fully publishing all the data on any accident.
HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
Rate of 2016 US Farming deaths: 21.4/100,000 workers (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/default.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/default.html) Rate of 2016 US Automobile deaths: 11.59/100,000 population, not drivers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...) So, according to your logic, we should stop farming immediately, but continue driving?
- JoshCole 8y ago
  No. You misunderstood his position. According to his logic the risk aversion is a bad strategy. So according to his logic, we should both continue driving and continue farming.
jacquesm 8y ago
Arguing that it would be nice if something existed is not very useful in determining the actual performance of attempts to create it. Yes it would be nice. No that does not give anybody a free pass.

by sgslo 8y ago

s2g 8y ago

Or we could not let companies murder people with shitty half baked hardware and software combinations.

dbt00 8y ago

The theorized upside is immense but that doesn't mean the practical difference now is even positive. If Tesla (Uber's already out of the game, probably) wants to keep operating autopilot in public, they owe us actual statistics on safety so that the public can make an informed decision. The private data laundered through the NTSB two years ago is incredibly suspect, and the fatality rate for Tesla since then appears to exceed what the average human piloted car would do.

Semirhage 8y ago

Then you and other people like you can volunteer to work at a test track as obstacles. Leave the rest of us out of it. You’re entitled to your utopian fantasy of what might be, and the best way to express that is to put your life on the line instead of volunteering others to do it. Statements like this seem to be trying to make the point that any amount of increased public risk is unacceptable unless everyone opts in to accept it. No, statements like mine reject the notion that sacrificing lives today for the possibility of an unproven improvement sat some unspecified later date is morally reprehensible. My answer is to invite the person endorsing this to put their own life on the line instead. If we were talking about medical testing on humans instead of cars, maybe it would be easier for some to understand. “It’s so bad today, the only course of action is to act recklessly to improve things as fast as possible!” is a thoroughly rejected argument.

zaroth 8y ago
Statements like this seem to be trying to make the point that any amount of increased public risk is unacceptable unless everyone opts in to accept it. I find this argument entirely uncompelling. There are an inordinate amount of risks imposed upon me while operating in society which I neither agreed to nor would I given the choice, aside from in a hand-wavy “social contract” sense. However as a member of society I am in fact compelled to accept myriad risks on a daily basis imposed on me for the benefit of others, or the benefit of potential scientific advancement. This concept that a society cannot morally make risk-reward decisions in the course of technological advancement is entire bunk IMO. Government can absolutely morally make these trade offs and does so constantly. I feel pretty good about the current legal and regulatory frameworks and the technical chops of the NTSB to monitor developments in self-driving R&D adequately. One thing I am certain of is that we absolutely must succeed in developing, productizing, deploying, and ultimately mandating self-driving technology. Millions of lives and trillions of dollars are at stake, and yes, society as a whole will incur individual loss of life in the pursuit of this goal. An attempt to develop the technology with zero risk of collateral damage would in fact cost many more lives overall.
- dbt00 8y ago
  So far, per mile driven, the fatality rates of Uber and Tesla SDVs are far higher than human drivers in statistically safer than average vehicles. Waymo has a better track record but essentially refuses to drive at significant speed -- I have yet to see a Waymo SDV place itself in a situation with a higher speed limit than 35mph, and I see them a lot.
  - mclehman 8y ago
    I regularly see the Waymo vehicles in 45 mph zones on my commute. I can't say I've seen them go any faster, but I spend about 95% of my time on roads marked 45 mph or less.
- gascan 8y ago
  See, what I hear you saying is "Other people will needlessly die, but their sacrifice is a chance I am willing to take". The public takes risks every day, but it rarely gives companies a free pass to move fast and kill people.

saalweachter 8y ago

> The upside of self driving vehicles is so immense that I can't help but find in favor of giving leeway to companies developing this tech. This is, frankly, how a lot of scams work. Sure, there are some rough patches and the prototype doesn't work, but imagine when it does ... ! If Theranos had been able to diagnose all diseases from a finger stick, the upside would have been crazy-huge. If the EM drive could generate substantial reactionless thrust, the upside would have been Trekian. If high-deductible health insurance plans discouraged primarily wasteful healthcare spending... If vegetable smoothies...

troupe 8y ago

> I would vote legislation limiting the accident liability of 'qualified' companies developing self driving tech. I'm not sure I agree, but if there were something like this, I think one of the requirements for being 'qualified' would be fully publishing all the data on any accident.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago

Rate of 2016 US Farming deaths: 21.4/100,000 workers (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/default.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/default.html) Rate of 2016 US Automobile deaths: 11.59/100,000 population, not drivers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...) So, according to your logic, we should stop farming immediately, but continue driving?

JoshCole 8y ago
No. You misunderstood his position. According to his logic the risk aversion is a bad strategy. So according to his logic, we should both continue driving and continue farming.

jacquesm 8y ago

Arguing that it would be nice if something existed is not very useful in determining the actual performance of attempts to create it. Yes it would be nice. No that does not give anybody a free pass.