4 ms·

Self-driving vehicle development has so many difficult problems to solve. The technology itself is extremely difficult to create and relies on this extremely co

by wand3r 8y ago

Self-driving vehicle development has so many difficult problems to solve. The technology itself is extremely difficult to create and relies on this extremely complex compromise where vehicles are allowed (and are) operated by code but ultimately babysat by drivers. I think self-driving technology is worth the risk and worth the large amount of property damage and human injury that comes with it. However, this is a societal issue and there needs to be some sort of referendum on this. While many parallels can be drawn with space travel, those projects were tightly contained and included individuals who were specifically trained and informed of the potential dangers--there is no way to really do this at scale for self-driving tech which necessarily demands an expansive ecosystem that can't be tightly controlled nor can consent be inferred from the unknown number of people involved in this experiment.

cgidriver 8y ago
Indeed its worth the risk - but not at the cost of human life. And if the risk is being taken by a company, it has to pay for it - because it intends to reap the rewards? Not a woman or a negligent employee.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > And if the risk is being taken by a company, it has to pay for it - because it intends to reap the rewards? Not a woman or a negligent employee. First of all, this is criminal liability. Uber may still be held financially liable in a civil court. Secondly, liability needs to be decided on a case by case basis. In this case, the woman (not "a woman") shouldn't have crossed the road and the operator should have been alert. Furthermore, why should a company be criminally liable for any negligent behavior of an employee? That's ridiculous.
  - cgidriver 8y ago
    > First of all, this is criminal liability. Uber may still be held financially liable in a civil court. I am waiting for the 10% of market value punishment for Uber. > Secondly, liability needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Agreed. > In this case, the woman (not "a women") shouldn't have crossed the road and the operator should have been alert. In this case, "the Uber" should have made sure it's sensors pick up the point cloud in 1/15th of the second and stop the car in time. >Furthermore, why should a company be criminally liable for >any negligent behavior of an employee? That's ridiculous. Indeed - I am just preaching for 10%. And only from the shareholders :).
zeroname 8y ago
> However, this is a societal issue and there needs to be some sort of referendum on this. Why? Where's the referendum on allowing people to drive vehicles? People cause 99% of accidents in the streets, as of today.
- umeshunni 8y ago
  Also, referendums are terrible at creating anything meaningful - see Brexit or just about anything in the state of California.
gotocake 8y ago
I think self-driving technology is worth the risk and worth the large amount of property damage and human injury that comes with it. I’m guessing you don’t see your property or life as being worth sacrificing for this “noble” goal, right? I’m a little horrified at people who gleefully volunteer their fellow humans to suffer or die in the name of progress. If however you want to personally volunteer your person and property in the name of technological advancement, that would be a different matter.
- saulrh 8y ago
  "Are you willing to risk your life to improve this" is a leading question. What I think you meant to ask is something more like "are you willing to improve safety with your daily risk or not". I am already risking my life on the road every day. Last month I was in a Lyft and the driver decided to go around a car that was blocking an intersection and in the process swung the front of the car though the path of an oncoming light-rail train. I've known a couple people that got hit by drunk drivers; they didn't sign up for anything at all. So what's the difference? There are multiple fatal automobile accidents per day per major metro area. At least make those deaths mean something. In fact, we already do this. All over the place. Clinical trials. Yeah, those are more heavily regulated, but the possibility of relatively increased risk there is far greater - I would not expect a modern autonomous vehicle to be ten or a hundred times more likely to kill its passengers than a human driver is. How about legislation? The legislation on drugs that's ruining some states is nothing more than some politician spending their constituents' lives to signal their own perceived moral virtue to their party. Or maybe construction projects. Every time we put up a lighter, cheaper bridge we are saving time and money by risking the lives of every person that takes that bridge instead of finding a job on the near side of the river. Or allergic reactions to medications, including vaccines! Negative reactions to vaccines are incredibly rare, but you bet your ass that I will choose to bet that someone doesn't have guillain-barre instead of letting them spread measles. Alternatively, excuse me while I fight dirty for a bit. Let's turn your argument around. I believe that it is effectively certain that autonomous vehicles will save lives in the long run. Slowing that down costs lives. So why are you so willing to spend those lives? What right do you have to spend the lives of the people who would have been saved by autonomous cars because you thought that it was more important to preserve people's right to get hit by drunk drivers today? This is what civilization is. Just do the math.

by wand3r 8y ago

cgidriver 8y ago

Indeed its worth the risk - but not at the cost of human life. And if the risk is being taken by a company, it has to pay for it - because it intends to reap the rewards? Not a woman or a negligent employee.

zeroname 8y ago
> And if the risk is being taken by a company, it has to pay for it - because it intends to reap the rewards? Not a woman or a negligent employee. First of all, this is criminal liability. Uber may still be held financially liable in a civil court. Secondly, liability needs to be decided on a case by case basis. In this case, the woman (not "a woman") shouldn't have crossed the road and the operator should have been alert. Furthermore, why should a company be criminally liable for any negligent behavior of an employee? That's ridiculous.
- cgidriver 8y ago
  > First of all, this is criminal liability. Uber may still be held financially liable in a civil court. I am waiting for the 10% of market value punishment for Uber. > Secondly, liability needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Agreed. > In this case, the woman (not "a women") shouldn't have crossed the road and the operator should have been alert. In this case, "the Uber" should have made sure it's sensors pick up the point cloud in 1/15th of the second and stop the car in time. >Furthermore, why should a company be criminally liable for >any negligent behavior of an employee? That's ridiculous. Indeed - I am just preaching for 10%. And only from the shareholders :).

zeroname 8y ago

> However, this is a societal issue and there needs to be some sort of referendum on this. Why? Where's the referendum on allowing people to drive vehicles? People cause 99% of accidents in the streets, as of today.

umeshunni 8y ago
Also, referendums are terrible at creating anything meaningful - see Brexit or just about anything in the state of California.

gotocake 8y ago

I think self-driving technology is worth the risk and worth the large amount of property damage and human injury that comes with it. I’m guessing you don’t see your property or life as being worth sacrificing for this “noble” goal, right? I’m a little horrified at people who gleefully volunteer their fellow humans to suffer or die in the name of progress. If however you want to personally volunteer your person and property in the name of technological advancement, that would be a different matter.

saulrh 8y ago
"Are you willing to risk your life to improve this" is a leading question. What I think you meant to ask is something more like "are you willing to improve safety with your daily risk or not". I am already risking my life on the road every day. Last month I was in a Lyft and the driver decided to go around a car that was blocking an intersection and in the process swung the front of the car though the path of an oncoming light-rail train. I've known a couple people that got hit by drunk drivers; they didn't sign up for anything at all. So what's the difference? There are multiple fatal automobile accidents per day per major metro area. At least make those deaths mean something. In fact, we already do this. All over the place. Clinical trials. Yeah, those are more heavily regulated, but the possibility of relatively increased risk there is far greater - I would not expect a modern autonomous vehicle to be ten or a hundred times more likely to kill its passengers than a human driver is. How about legislation? The legislation on drugs that's ruining some states is nothing more than some politician spending their constituents' lives to signal their own perceived moral virtue to their party. Or maybe construction projects. Every time we put up a lighter, cheaper bridge we are saving time and money by risking the lives of every person that takes that bridge instead of finding a job on the near side of the river. Or allergic reactions to medications, including vaccines! Negative reactions to vaccines are incredibly rare, but you bet your ass that I will choose to bet that someone doesn't have guillain-barre instead of letting them spread measles. Alternatively, excuse me while I fight dirty for a bit. Let's turn your argument around. I believe that it is effectively certain that autonomous vehicles will save lives in the long run. Slowing that down costs lives. So why are you so willing to spend those lives? What right do you have to spend the lives of the people who would have been saved by autonomous cars because you thought that it was more important to preserve people's right to get hit by drunk drivers today? This is what civilization is. Just do the math.