5 ms·
You have it exactly backwards. You will _know_ what the vehicle will do because it will be programmed to do it. Meanwhile, that other vehicle could do anything
by jacobmoe 8y ago
You have it exactly backwards. You will _know_ what the vehicle will do because it will be programmed to do it. Meanwhile, that other vehicle could do anything because the driver might be texting, might have fallen asleep, might be in a fit of rage.
Driving is an absurdly dangerous thing to do. We don't tolerate that level of risk in almost anything else in life. It just so happens that getting around at 60mph is so useful that we accept the risk. As soon as we have an alternative to human drivers, it will seem insane to keep risking as many lives as currently do on the highways.
- scarejunba 8y agoI'm damned if I can say what my own models will do. Can't really tell what the other guy's stuff will. But to be honest, I'm so excited by this.
- notahacker 8y ago> You will _know_ what the vehicle will do because it will be programmed to do it. I don't share either the OP's confidence in the attentiveness of human drivers or yours in the existence of bug-free complex software The biggest differences between the two is that (i) software bugs can be potentially be systematic across all vehicle types and sudden, whereas human failure modes are discrete (ii) we have pretty good data on human failure modes which set the mileage interval for catastrophic failure surprisingly high, even higher if excluding human failures linked to behaviours society has decided not to tolerate, such as DUI and road racing.
- jacobmoe 8y agoI don't have confidence in bug-free software, just in software that is bug-free enough to be better than the status quo. Systematic bugs can be fixed systematically. Humans will never not be too easily distracted, easily angered, easily bored. We're never going to fix ancient human characteristics so that driving stops being an unacceptable risk to life.