4 ms·

>save thousands, and kill hundreds Seriously. Why does everyone assume this? Because Tesla's marketing department says so?

BurningFrog 7y ago
Because the overwhelming majority of traffic deaths are due to human errors (A) a computer could easily avoid. It would of course introduce a class of errors (B) that humans would not have made, but those can be iteratively improved until they're substantially lower than the category they're replacing. My point is that once B is substantially lower than A, the tech should be deployed. But I fear people will demand B = 0.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I agree. >once B is substantially lower than A It's the presumption that this ^ is a given; that's what I have a problem with. I think people assume B will continue to decrease in a linear fashion, (or maybe log/exp, but at least not hitting it's asymptote / limit until it's less than A). But we're already seeing diminishing returns, and since A and B are both difficult to measure, I think presuming that the good will automatically outweigh the bad (at least in the foreseeable future) is nothing more than blind hope at this point. There's also no reason to believe that it won't become more dangerous at some point. Look at air travel. Automation made great improvements in safety without many downsides. Until maybe about 10 years ago, when automation related accidents started creeping up (yet usually blamed on pilot error). And then you get to the 737-max problem. (I'm not claiming air travel is more dangerous, it's not. But mechanical reliability and materials testing / repair are doing far more for safety than automation is. Modern jet engines are an underappreciated marvel of science.) Personally, I would accept a greater risk for the convenience of being driven by AI, and I don't think I'm alone. I just think it's a bit of blind hope (and even some arrogance) to assume AI will be safer anytime soon.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Because the overwhelming majority of traffic deaths are due to human errors (A) a computer could easily avoid. It would of course introduce a class of errors (B) that humans would not have made, but those can be iteratively improved until they're substantially lower than the category they're replacing. My point is that once B is substantially lower than A, the tech should be deployed. But I fear people will demand B = 0.

beerandt 7y ago
I agree. >once B is substantially lower than A It's the presumption that this ^ is a given; that's what I have a problem with. I think people assume B will continue to decrease in a linear fashion, (or maybe log/exp, but at least not hitting it's asymptote / limit until it's less than A). But we're already seeing diminishing returns, and since A and B are both difficult to measure, I think presuming that the good will automatically outweigh the bad (at least in the foreseeable future) is nothing more than blind hope at this point. There's also no reason to believe that it won't become more dangerous at some point. Look at air travel. Automation made great improvements in safety without many downsides. Until maybe about 10 years ago, when automation related accidents started creeping up (yet usually blamed on pilot error). And then you get to the 737-max problem. (I'm not claiming air travel is more dangerous, it's not. But mechanical reliability and materials testing / repair are doing far more for safety than automation is. Modern jet engines are an underappreciated marvel of science.) Personally, I would accept a greater risk for the convenience of being driven by AI, and I don't think I'm alone. I just think it's a bit of blind hope (and even some arrogance) to assume AI will be safer anytime soon.