8 ms·

Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? The difference between those two scenarios is that different people will die. It also assumes we all adopt A

Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? The difference between those two scenarios is that different people will die. It also assumes we all adopt AVs too. Now of course everybody has equal value, but are you prepared to accept that a software bug and a lapse in human judgement are also equal? Without accepting that at a societal level the average person will not accept AVs. Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again, or be punished if alcohol was involved. With an AV, currently nobody knows. It could be as simple as "we've checked in the bugfix to prevent this from happening again" with no emotion behind it.

foob 7y ago
Hasn't the rise of Uber and Lyft already turned it into a numbers game? I get drivers that I would consider below average all the time, and I don't have any control over which driver I get. Even when you're the one driving, you have no control over whether the car in front of you is being driven by a good driver or somebody texting who might cause an accident that endangers you. I agree that it needs to be accepted on a societal level, but if you can definitively say "self driving cars are safer than the average Uber driver," then I don't think it will be that hard of a sell. That's especially true if it results in less expensive rides in addition to lower crash rates.
- gibolt 7y ago
  This. For the majority of fatalities, the driver that caused the accident is rarely among the dead. They are generally in another vehicle. Everything is random. Decreasing the odds of failure will kill individuals, but even a software edge case can cause a phone to explode. The assumption we are always in control is what needs to change.
jussij 7y ago
> Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? The reality is lots of people die on the road and the numbers show this sad fact. Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their own. They die at the hands of the other driver. The sooner we can take away that human element from driving the better, because that one act will end up saving lots of lives. > Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again That is so untrue, at least for what happens here in Australia. Here in Australia we have many hundreds in not thousands of repeat drink driving, speeding offenders on the roads, and short of locking them up there is no way to keep them off the roads. Taking away their license makes no difference as they just drive without a license.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  >Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their own. They die at the hands of the other driver. That's way fewer
  - jussij 7y ago
    This seems like a very circular argument. The argument in this thread seems to suggest we should be slow at adopting av technology because it could kill some innocent people. Now I accept that point as a fact. There is no doubt people will die in av cars just like people die in cars today. Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number.
    - AdieuToLogic 7y ago
      > Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number. Speaking for no one other than myself, vehicular deaths are not "acceptable collateral damage" so much as a statistical inevitability, one sought to be minimized as much as possible. The problem with introducing autonomous vehicle technology, again IMHO, is the assumption that it "would help to greatly reduce that number." This is not a known result.
      - jussij 7y ago
        > This is not a known result. And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get answered. But logic suggests they would help only because, with the exceptions of bugs in the system, the av: . would not drive drunk . would not speed . would not run red lights . would not get tired . has better reaction times than humans . has better eyesight than humans . is not distracted by mobile phones, passengers or pretty girls/guys walking on the foot path . is not susceptible to road rage . etc etc.
randomsearch 7y ago
Yes. We absolutely want to turn it into a “numbers game”, we want to make rational policy decisions.
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
> Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? Yes, of course we want this to be a numbers game. What else would you have this discussion be about? Irrational feelings?
jogjayr 7y ago
> Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again, or be punished if alcohol was involved. With an AV, currently nobody knows. Easy to turn that around. Only individual humans learn from their mistakes - and even then, not always. But with AI, the whole fleet learns that lesson.

foob 7y ago

Hasn't the rise of Uber and Lyft already turned it into a numbers game? I get drivers that I would consider below average all the time, and I don't have any control over which driver I get. Even when you're the one driving, you have no control over whether the car in front of you is being driven by a good driver or somebody texting who might cause an accident that endangers you. I agree that it needs to be accepted on a societal level, but if you can definitively say "self driving cars are safer than the average Uber driver," then I don't think it will be that hard of a sell. That's especially true if it results in less expensive rides in addition to lower crash rates.

gibolt 7y ago
This. For the majority of fatalities, the driver that caused the accident is rarely among the dead. They are generally in another vehicle. Everything is random. Decreasing the odds of failure will kill individuals, but even a software edge case can cause a phone to explode. The assumption we are always in control is what needs to change.

jussij 7y ago

> Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? The reality is lots of people die on the road and the numbers show this sad fact. Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their own. They die at the hands of the other driver. The sooner we can take away that human element from driving the better, because that one act will end up saving lots of lives. > Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again That is so untrue, at least for what happens here in Australia. Here in Australia we have many hundreds in not thousands of repeat drink driving, speeding offenders on the roads, and short of locking them up there is no way to keep them off the roads. Taking away their license makes no difference as they just drive without a license.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
>Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their own. They die at the hands of the other driver. That's way fewer
- jussij 7y ago
  This seems like a very circular argument. The argument in this thread seems to suggest we should be slow at adopting av technology because it could kill some innocent people. Now I accept that point as a fact. There is no doubt people will die in av cars just like people die in cars today. Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number.
  - AdieuToLogic 7y ago
    > Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number. Speaking for no one other than myself, vehicular deaths are not "acceptable collateral damage" so much as a statistical inevitability, one sought to be minimized as much as possible. The problem with introducing autonomous vehicle technology, again IMHO, is the assumption that it "would help to greatly reduce that number." This is not a known result.
    - jussij 7y ago
      > This is not a known result. And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get answered. But logic suggests they would help only because, with the exceptions of bugs in the system, the av: . would not drive drunk . would not speed . would not run red lights . would not get tired . has better reaction times than humans . has better eyesight than humans . is not distracted by mobile phones, passengers or pretty girls/guys walking on the foot path . is not susceptible to road rage . etc etc.

randomsearch 7y ago

Yes. We absolutely want to turn it into a “numbers game”, we want to make rational policy decisions.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

> Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? Yes, of course we want this to be a numbers game. What else would you have this discussion be about? Irrational feelings?

jogjayr 7y ago

> Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again, or be punished if alcohol was involved. With an AV, currently nobody knows. Easy to turn that around. Only individual humans learn from their mistakes - and even then, not always. But with AI, the whole fleet learns that lesson.