3 ms·
I can't speak for others, but while this is true in aggregate, I'm not personally willing to stake my life on a system that can, on a 1-in-a-million event and w
by elevenbits 7y ago
I can't speak for others, but while this is true in aggregate, I'm not personally willing to stake my life on a system that can, on a 1-in-a-million event and with no warning, accelerate into a fatal collision. An otherwise 100% accident-free driving record matters not when I'm dead.
The failure modes of these systems need to be much more gentle: when I'm confronted with an uncertainty while driving, I slow down and pay more attention. I don't speed up until I'm confident that a higher speed is reasonable. This is far far more sophisticated than simply "can I see something in front of me" -- I'm evaluating the probability that I need to stop based on the events I can see happening. If I see a car in front of me slow down and swerve out of the way of something, that means something much more than "obstacle detected" -> "obstacle removed".
- quotemstr 7y ago> while this is true in aggregate, I'm not personally willing to stake my life on a system Why not? Statistically, you're safer with an autonomous system. Unless you're sure you're a much better driver than average, your position is irrational.
- imtringued 7y agoOnly because the autonomous system restricts itself to drive in safer than average conditions. Stopping for a stationary object is something humans do dozens of times per journey in city traffic.