4 ms·

I'm not defending Tesla or Uber, they're the ones that have killed people, and I think they both were (and in Tesla's case still are) behaving irresponsibly. C

I'm not defending Tesla or Uber, they're the ones that have killed people, and I think they both were (and in Tesla's case still are) behaving irresponsibly. Cruise and Waymo have both done tons of closed course testing, that's where they validate their respective systems against mission critical stuff like knowing when to slam on the brakes. But eventually they've got to go out into the real world and learn to deal with real traffic on real roads. I wish I could tell you the risk was zero, but it isn't and never will be.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Cruise and Waymo have both done tons of closed course testing, that's where they validate their respective systems against mission critical stuff. But eventually they've got to go out into the real world and learn to deal with real traffic on real roads. Waymo has been doing that longer than anyone, though.
- Fricken 8y ago
  Technically Waymo has been acting like cowboys longer than anyone. They smartened up and got serious about safety around 2015, but before that they were winging it. It was just a goofy science experiment back then. The Google self-drivng car project was under the leadership of Sebastien Thrun and Anthony Levandowski, and as hardcore engineering types their thinking was 'We'll save more people than we kill', and it was as simple as that.
  - tigershark 8y ago
    And though there is no fatality for waymo, while we already one for Uber just at the beginning of their program.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
Well, to my ear that sounds like "People will still die in car wrecks and I don't even have data substantiating my assumption that fewer people will die than is true currently, but I somehow feel that if robotic vehicles are killing people, that's automatically better than if a human is behind the wheel."
- Fricken 8y ago
  We wouldn't be doing our due diligence if we didn't try. Otherwise it's pretty much a guarantee that 30-40,000 people will die on America's roads next year and every year after that.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    That still in no way answers the question I have posed concerning why developing driverless vehicles must involve training deaths. I have already said I am not against their development per se.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      There's no way to possibly guarantee 100% safety so proposing it as the standard is as good as killing off the program. What's that classic example, robocar has to make a choice between (potentially) killing a bus full of school kids or a bunch of adults standing around on the sidewalk.
    - solipsism 8y ago
      It's an almost nonsensical question, that's why you're having trouble getting people to answer it. People are saying "a small number of people might die and no one wants that, but it's impractical-to-impossible to guarantee that zero people will die." And you are asking, "but why? But why?" Now and then there at washing machine deaths. Society accepts these because they're so rare and because it would be impractical to completely prevent them. Compared to the number of road deaths most experts believe will be prevented over time, the few deaths we may encounter from training deaths seems completely inconsequential.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Acting like my question is dumb because the first however many replies to my comment made no real effort to actually answer it isn't a good faith argument and veers rather close to a personal attack.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Cruise and Waymo have both done tons of closed course testing, that's where they validate their respective systems against mission critical stuff. But eventually they've got to go out into the real world and learn to deal with real traffic on real roads. Waymo has been doing that longer than anyone, though.

Fricken 8y ago
Technically Waymo has been acting like cowboys longer than anyone. They smartened up and got serious about safety around 2015, but before that they were winging it. It was just a goofy science experiment back then. The Google self-drivng car project was under the leadership of Sebastien Thrun and Anthony Levandowski, and as hardcore engineering types their thinking was 'We'll save more people than we kill', and it was as simple as that.
- tigershark 8y ago
  And though there is no fatality for waymo, while we already one for Uber just at the beginning of their program.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Well, to my ear that sounds like "People will still die in car wrecks and I don't even have data substantiating my assumption that fewer people will die than is true currently, but I somehow feel that if robotic vehicles are killing people, that's automatically better than if a human is behind the wheel."

Fricken 8y ago
We wouldn't be doing our due diligence if we didn't try. Otherwise it's pretty much a guarantee that 30-40,000 people will die on America's roads next year and every year after that.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  That still in no way answers the question I have posed concerning why developing driverless vehicles must involve training deaths. I have already said I am not against their development per se.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    There's no way to possibly guarantee 100% safety so proposing it as the standard is as good as killing off the program. What's that classic example, robocar has to make a choice between (potentially) killing a bus full of school kids or a bunch of adults standing around on the sidewalk.
  - solipsism 8y ago
    It's an almost nonsensical question, that's why you're having trouble getting people to answer it. People are saying "a small number of people might die and no one wants that, but it's impractical-to-impossible to guarantee that zero people will die." And you are asking, "but why? But why?" Now and then there at washing machine deaths. Society accepts these because they're so rare and because it would be impractical to completely prevent them. Compared to the number of road deaths most experts believe will be prevented over time, the few deaths we may encounter from training deaths seems completely inconsequential.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Acting like my question is dumb because the first however many replies to my comment made no real effort to actually answer it isn't a good faith argument and veers rather close to a personal attack.