3 ms·

Do you think beta software belongs in airplanes too? We sure could do with a lot more 737 MAX incidents.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 7y ago
That point might actually carry some weight if we lost 30,000 people in air crashes every year, instead of roughly zero.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  Plane crashes are so rare because of the risk aversion. It's perfectly relevant.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    In any case, that degree of risk aversion is unachievable, unaffordable, and unproductive when discussing personal automobiles. Cars are killing people now. It is not reasonable to wait for some Utopian future where every car has the ability to pilot itself with NASA-grade software. Human drivers are already "moving fast and breaking things," and they're not getting any better at it.
    - frosted-flakes 7y ago
      But we're not waiting. Cars today are absolutely crammed with automated safety features. Far more than the airbags and ABS on my 20 year old VW. Think automatic collision avoidance, blind zone detectors, traction control, lane departure warnings, back-up cameras, adaptive cruise control, and more that I've probably never heard of yet.[0] To think that we're waiting until perfect level 5 automated driving before we release it to the public is ridiculous. As the article clearly states, > Most OEMs are now more forthright about the fact that autonomy will be a succession of small, graduated steps. We didn't go straight to landing on the moon. Neither will we go straight to autonomous driving, or flying cars. Flying cars will never happen, because there are no gradual steps between flying and not flying, but software can be gradually improved. That doesn't mean running untested beta software in cars though. [0] Also, advanced crumple zones, numerous airbags, proper safety restraints, crash guards on transport trailers, high-tech road makings, restrictive driving tests, and strict laws on driving while intoxicated or distracted.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

That point might actually carry some weight if we lost 30,000 people in air crashes every year, instead of roughly zero.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Plane crashes are so rare because of the risk aversion. It's perfectly relevant.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  In any case, that degree of risk aversion is unachievable, unaffordable, and unproductive when discussing personal automobiles. Cars are killing people now. It is not reasonable to wait for some Utopian future where every car has the ability to pilot itself with NASA-grade software. Human drivers are already "moving fast and breaking things," and they're not getting any better at it.
  - frosted-flakes 7y ago
    But we're not waiting. Cars today are absolutely crammed with automated safety features. Far more than the airbags and ABS on my 20 year old VW. Think automatic collision avoidance, blind zone detectors, traction control, lane departure warnings, back-up cameras, adaptive cruise control, and more that I've probably never heard of yet.[0] To think that we're waiting until perfect level 5 automated driving before we release it to the public is ridiculous. As the article clearly states, > Most OEMs are now more forthright about the fact that autonomy will be a succession of small, graduated steps. We didn't go straight to landing on the moon. Neither will we go straight to autonomous driving, or flying cars. Flying cars will never happen, because there are no gradual steps between flying and not flying, but software can be gradually improved. That doesn't mean running untested beta software in cars though. [0] Also, advanced crumple zones, numerous airbags, proper safety restraints, crash guards on transport trailers, high-tech road makings, restrictive driving tests, and strict laws on driving while intoxicated or distracted.