4 ms·

No, they have to be much better than human drivers, close to perfect. We all know and expect that people make mistakes, and if a driver kills themselves by mist

No, they have to be much better than human drivers, close to perfect. We all know and expect that people make mistakes, and if a driver kills themselves by mistake that's on them. But if you buy a machine to drive you and it kills you because the engineers made a mistake, that's a different thing. That's much less tolerated, and rightly so, even if it isn't 100% logical by your standard. It's not just about mean number of accidents per driven km, it's also about accountability and blame.

grecy 8y ago
I understand that many people will view it that way, but there is another way to view it. Every single time I get in a vehicle, the people coming towards me might be talking on their phone, drunk or whatever. There is a very real chance I will be injured or killed on a daily basis even if I drive perfectly, and nothing beyond my abilities happens. In the same way that seat belts and airbags and automatic braking improved safety, imperfect self-driving cars will improve overall safety. The important thing to note is that seat belts, airbags and automatic braking a far from perfect, and thousands of people a year still die even though they are using them. People still use them, because it is safer than the alternative - which imperfect self driving cars will be too.
- ivanbakel 8y ago
  So what? People will not accept a computer driver, even if it manages a significant improvement on the current rate of car accidents, because there is a real psychological barrier. Your counterargument of "but it's an improvement" would miss that point. Humans are prone to all sorts of fallacies, especially surrounding "destiny" and our own influence over our lives - that's why ideas like "bad things happen to bad people" are so popular. That kind of problem is not surmountable by statistical fact. You cannot sway the majority of road users to trust a machine that way. They want to be in control, because it makes them feel something that the computer can't - safe in their own hands.
  - grecy 8y ago
    > People will not accept a computer driver, even if it manages a significant improvement on the current rate of car accidents, because there is a real psychological barrier In your opinion. We can't know what people will accept, because we've never tried something like this before. I've pointed out my view, and you've pointed out yours. Time will be the only way to see what people are willing to accept, or not.
  - eyeundersand 8y ago
    Are you also one of these 'people' that will not accept a computer driver? Those people are using a poor emotional argument.
    - ivanbakel 8y ago
      That's exactly what I'm saying. The poor emotional argument is very important, and you can't just attack it with statistics.
    - magduf 8y ago
      >Those people are using a poor emotional argument. Yes, they certainly are, but those people also vote. You can't just ignore them and their idiotic arguments, unless you live in a techno-authoritarian nation where things like this are forced on the populace against their will (even if their will is stupid). This is the whole problem here; you can't just convince everyone with a technical argument, because most people are non-technical, emotional, and frequently quite stupid, but they also have a say in decisions.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Sure, for some people but certainly not me. I even will accept computer driver if it only slightly worse than human driver
- twodave 8y ago
  I would rather compare an auto-driving failure more to an airbag that failed to deploy or was otherwise rendered useless. An airbag that is inadequate for the amount of force applied might still save your life, and is still serving its intended purpose. Auto-driving incidents are so outrageous because they represent systematic failures.

grecy 8y ago

I understand that many people will view it that way, but there is another way to view it. Every single time I get in a vehicle, the people coming towards me might be talking on their phone, drunk or whatever. There is a very real chance I will be injured or killed on a daily basis even if I drive perfectly, and nothing beyond my abilities happens. In the same way that seat belts and airbags and automatic braking improved safety, imperfect self-driving cars will improve overall safety. The important thing to note is that seat belts, airbags and automatic braking a far from perfect, and thousands of people a year still die even though they are using them. People still use them, because it is safer than the alternative - which imperfect self driving cars will be too.

ivanbakel 8y ago
So what? People will not accept a computer driver, even if it manages a significant improvement on the current rate of car accidents, because there is a real psychological barrier. Your counterargument of "but it's an improvement" would miss that point. Humans are prone to all sorts of fallacies, especially surrounding "destiny" and our own influence over our lives - that's why ideas like "bad things happen to bad people" are so popular. That kind of problem is not surmountable by statistical fact. You cannot sway the majority of road users to trust a machine that way. They want to be in control, because it makes them feel something that the computer can't - safe in their own hands.
- grecy 8y ago
  > People will not accept a computer driver, even if it manages a significant improvement on the current rate of car accidents, because there is a real psychological barrier In your opinion. We can't know what people will accept, because we've never tried something like this before. I've pointed out my view, and you've pointed out yours. Time will be the only way to see what people are willing to accept, or not.
- eyeundersand 8y ago
  Are you also one of these 'people' that will not accept a computer driver? Those people are using a poor emotional argument.
  - ivanbakel 8y ago
    That's exactly what I'm saying. The poor emotional argument is very important, and you can't just attack it with statistics.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >Those people are using a poor emotional argument. Yes, they certainly are, but those people also vote. You can't just ignore them and their idiotic arguments, unless you live in a techno-authoritarian nation where things like this are forced on the populace against their will (even if their will is stupid). This is the whole problem here; you can't just convince everyone with a technical argument, because most people are non-technical, emotional, and frequently quite stupid, but they also have a say in decisions.
- matz1 8y ago
  Sure, for some people but certainly not me. I even will accept computer driver if it only slightly worse than human driver
twodave 8y ago
I would rather compare an auto-driving failure more to an airbag that failed to deploy or was otherwise rendered useless. An airbag that is inadequate for the amount of force applied might still save your life, and is still serving its intended purpose. Auto-driving incidents are so outrageous because they represent systematic failures.