4 ms·

No, that's a wrong benchmark. We shouldn't compare driverless cars with the average human driver. We should compare them with the average human driver assisted

No, that's a wrong benchmark. We shouldn't compare driverless cars with the average human driver. We should compare them with the average human driver assisted by the best technology (which is say waymo's driverless software running passively to prevent accidents).

zaroth 8y ago
You’re incorrectly assuming that a solution to the problem of self-driving a car is a superset of the problem of passive accident avoidance. If the software is in active control pretty much everything that goes into that is different from software that is deciding if and when to emergency brake. To put it another way, a self-driving system will become safer than human drivers, not because it knows how/when to emergency brake really well, but because it won’t have to emergency brake as frequently as a human does.
- legolas2412 8y ago
  Sure, I understand that a driverless system might prevent accidents by strictly maintaining safe distances. But the benchmark still can't be unaided human, rather a human aided by the best assistive technology that can be built (say by the same company).
the8472 8y ago
That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world. Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes including price, convenience and safety. Not needing a driver, freeing up time and lowering prices increase utility which could even justify a slight increase in risk. But even if we don't want to increase risk then a self-driving system still only has to be as good as humans on average to result in no net-increase of deaths per passenger mile while still increasing overall utility. And more simply, it is silly to expect the maximum possible value to be the minimum requirement.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Let's agree to disagree. But if we allow driverless cars on the road (with no backup), it should come after emergency braking, lane keeping assist, side collision assist etc have become mandatory. Just like airbags are mandatory now, and we enforce fuel efficiency on new cars but not existing cars.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Just to add. In a world where airbags are not mandatory,(autopilot+airbag) driverless technology would be safer than the average human (without airbags) on the road. So, you would be arguing for legalizing driverless cars completely overlooking that the gains are not because of driverless-ness but because of airbags. This holds true now too, almost all gains by driverless-ness can be had by emergency braking, lane keeping assists, side collision warning, and pedestrian detection etc.

zaroth 8y ago

You’re incorrectly assuming that a solution to the problem of self-driving a car is a superset of the problem of passive accident avoidance. If the software is in active control pretty much everything that goes into that is different from software that is deciding if and when to emergency brake. To put it another way, a self-driving system will become safer than human drivers, not because it knows how/when to emergency brake really well, but because it won’t have to emergency brake as frequently as a human does.

legolas2412 8y ago
Sure, I understand that a driverless system might prevent accidents by strictly maintaining safe distances. But the benchmark still can't be unaided human, rather a human aided by the best assistive technology that can be built (say by the same company).

the8472 8y ago

That's an irrelevant benchmark except for people who pay premium to have the safest ride in the world. Everyone else performs a tradeoff along multiple axes including price, convenience and safety. Not needing a driver, freeing up time and lowering prices increase utility which could even justify a slight increase in risk. But even if we don't want to increase risk then a self-driving system still only has to be as good as humans on average to result in no net-increase of deaths per passenger mile while still increasing overall utility. And more simply, it is silly to expect the maximum possible value to be the minimum requirement.

rohit2412 8y ago
Let's agree to disagree. But if we allow driverless cars on the road (with no backup), it should come after emergency braking, lane keeping assist, side collision assist etc have become mandatory. Just like airbags are mandatory now, and we enforce fuel efficiency on new cars but not existing cars.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Just to add. In a world where airbags are not mandatory,(autopilot+airbag) driverless technology would be safer than the average human (without airbags) on the road. So, you would be arguing for legalizing driverless cars completely overlooking that the gains are not because of driverless-ness but because of airbags. This holds true now too, almost all gains by driverless-ness can be had by emergency braking, lane keeping assists, side collision warning, and pedestrian detection etc.