3 ms·
> Even if autonomous algorithm was 10X better than human, when it takes on responsibility of driving 100 trucks, it would commit 10X more accidents than an aver
by andruby 8y ago
> Even if autonomous algorithm was 10X better than human, when it takes on responsibility of driving 100 trucks, it would commit 10X more accidents than an average human. It's an inescapable law of probability.
Could you explain this? Are you comparing an algorithm driving 100 trucks to 1 human driving 1 truck?
The single algorithm will not outperform the individual driver if it drives more trucks, but it will outperform the aggregate group of drivers needed to drive the same amount of trucks.
- sytelus 8y agoMy statement is true if each accident by human or algorithm was random error (i.e. not systematic error). When errors are random, you can reduce probability all you want but if you increase number of instances then you are back to square. BTW, this statement is not saying there is increased number of accidents in total. It is saying how many blames gets assigned to an entity. This is the distributed blame assignment problem. When 1000 humans drive 1000 trucks, blames gets distributed. But when same algorithm is deployed in 1000 trucks, each accident gets blamed on same algorithm. So same algorithm assumes all liability that was previously distributed among 1000 humans although total liability in the system might have been reduced.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y agoThe blame is assigned to some entity. But you cannot compare the entity of an algorithm, to an entity of one truck driver - you have to compare to the entity of the collective of all truck drivers. If you do that, the numbers will favor the algorithm clearly. The insurance companies are not stupid, they will easily see this logic. It is even in their own economic interest to see this logic. This is simply a non-argument against automated driving, it does not make sense.