4 ms·

> "If the choice is between getting self-driving cars more quickly with minimal regulation -- which is what's happening right now -- versus much more regulation

by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

> "If the choice is between getting self-driving cars more quickly with minimal regulation -- which is what's happening right now -- versus much more regulation that will slow their development and introduction, it seems straightforwardly obvious that more people are likely to die in the status quo environment in the latter scenario than people die from testing in the former scenario. Companies would really have to go full Mad Max to kill even close to as many people as our current infrastructure and design kill." I guess I am saying this seems to be straightforwardly false to me, to a huge huge degree, and it worries me that people would naively use the rate of auto deaths under current circumstances as a justification to allow self-driving technology development to proceed unregulated. It seems we just believe very strongly in positions that are completely and diametrically opposite to each other, so we are unlikely to find productive communication on a message board about it.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> I guess I am saying this seems to be straightforwardly false to me, to a huge huge degree Why? > It seems we just believe very strongly in positions that are completely and diametrically opposite to each other, so we are unlikely to find productive communication on a message board about it. I mean, if you're not willing to explaining your reasoning, then yes I suppose that's true. Although I think part of why you may feel that way is that, based on one of your earlier comments, you seem to think I'm some kind of libertarian who's just generally opposed to regulation. I'm not; if anything I'm more of a social democrat. I just think that in this particular case, things are different from normal for a new, potentially dangerous technology. My reasoning on the above point is fairly simple and straightforward: 1. The status quo for SDC development has been relatively minimal regulation. Even California mostly just makes companies report some basic data. 2. Most companies seem to be taking safety very seriously as it is, such that injuries and deaths have been rare. Only one death, and from a company widely acknowledged as ethically-challenged. 3. Given 2, it seems like the number of deaths that you'd avoid with greater regulation is very low, simply because, well, very few people are dying as it is. 4. Conversely, letting humans drive cars has resulted in an enormous number of people dying each year. 5. Given 3 and 4, slowing down SDC development with greater regulation seems likely to indirectly kill many, many more people than the status quo of minimally-regulated development will kill. Are you expecting Waymo to, any day now, start rampaging around cities and killing people by the dozens? What does the scenario look like where SDC development kills more people than human drivers currently kill? You didn't address my analogy with disease outbreaks; why not? You've done a good job arguing for the importance of regulation in general. You haven't done a good job arguing for why you think greater regulation in this particular scenario will avoid killing more people than the current setup kills.

TulliusCicero 8y ago

> I guess I am saying this seems to be straightforwardly false to me, to a huge huge degree Why? > It seems we just believe very strongly in positions that are completely and diametrically opposite to each other, so we are unlikely to find productive communication on a message board about it. I mean, if you're not willing to explaining your reasoning, then yes I suppose that's true. Although I think part of why you may feel that way is that, based on one of your earlier comments, you seem to think I'm some kind of libertarian who's just generally opposed to regulation. I'm not; if anything I'm more of a social democrat. I just think that in this particular case, things are different from normal for a new, potentially dangerous technology. My reasoning on the above point is fairly simple and straightforward: 1. The status quo for SDC development has been relatively minimal regulation. Even California mostly just makes companies report some basic data. 2. Most companies seem to be taking safety very seriously as it is, such that injuries and deaths have been rare. Only one death, and from a company widely acknowledged as ethically-challenged. 3. Given 2, it seems like the number of deaths that you'd avoid with greater regulation is very low, simply because, well, very few people are dying as it is. 4. Conversely, letting humans drive cars has resulted in an enormous number of people dying each year. 5. Given 3 and 4, slowing down SDC development with greater regulation seems likely to indirectly kill many, many more people than the status quo of minimally-regulated development will kill. Are you expecting Waymo to, any day now, start rampaging around cities and killing people by the dozens? What does the scenario look like where SDC development kills more people than human drivers currently kill? You didn't address my analogy with disease outbreaks; why not? You've done a good job arguing for the importance of regulation in general. You haven't done a good job arguing for why you think greater regulation in this particular scenario will avoid killing more people than the current setup kills.