2 ms·

"Not foolproof" is the most generous way possible to speak about pedestrian-avoidance systems that hit the pedestrian in every single tested case. From the art

• jfengel 7y ago
  These tests seem less than useful if you're not comparing them to the null hypothesis: people keep driving by themselves. As the article points out, pedestrian deaths are up, and that's not because of this technology. It's hard to compare because people and machines fail in different ways. Machines don't really know what people look like or how they behave, and are easily misled. People get drunk, get tired, get angry, look at their phones, and generally get confused. Humans have remarkable talents for putting together a 3D scene with only two eyes, but those eyes are extremely restricted in the range of wavelengths they perceive. If we get aggressive in shutting down the cause of accidents, we're going to ban cars entirely. The machines are far from perfect; they may even be far from good. But the machines are getting better, and humans are getting worse.