5 ms·

So, your family would be ok that your car sheared you off in a quirk unnecessary accident, so long as the overall stats were better than average? Non-ergotic s

So, your family would be ok that your car sheared you off in a quirk unnecessary accident, so long as the overall stats were better than average? Non-ergotic stats are not comparable to ergotic (group) stats.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Given 100 individuals who would have died in everyday accidents all would prefer a 99% chance of survival. Given a population of a million all would prefer a 1 in a million chance of death under a semi to a 1 in 10k chance of being smeared in a more average fashion. Your argument is the same one used against seat belts with people advocating a strictly inferior survival strategy to prevent a rare misadventure.
- iso947 7y ago
  That’s not how it works for humans though. “Other drivers are terrible. I am above average. Other drivers underride. I don’t”
- DrScump 7y ago
  Let's say your autodrive system replaces 100,000 driver-hours. Let's say those driver-hours would have resulted in 3 deaths of others (in vehicles or pedestrians) but your autodrive results in 1 different death (which wouldn't have occurred with the human drivers). Your stats are no comfort at all to the loved ones of your victim. It's like the Trolley Problem but the humans are unidentifiable.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    The trolley problem challenges people who don't consider choosing not to act equally an active choice or intuitively feel that action is different than inaction. I would always pick the most valuable to me side and pull the switch or leave it be to bring about the better end result. Given the availability of self driving vehicles that reduce mortality choosing to drive oneself and kill more people is an unethical choice that will be as little comfort to the 3 victims as the one.
    - DrScump 7y ago
      I would always pick the most valuable to me side Of course, when you know nothing about the would-be victims. But on a pure numbers theoretical basis, you autodrive veers out away from the three killers fleeing police by driving on the wrong side of the road in favor of running down two kids in a crosswalk. Real life is complicated.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        Where did I say I would decide value purely by number of people? Why did you include the fact that they were killers fleeing police? Are, you supposing that I will somehow infer this in the 2 seconds I have to react or you just positing completele nonsense to muddy the waters with emotions? Pedanticaly one would virtually never choose to hit pedestrians instead of cars because pedestrians don't have crumple zones or air bags. The big question is should cars prioritize the owners health or the greater good and If the latter what is the greater good. I don't think people will turn on a product that might decide to kill them to save a school bus so it's simplified to minimizing chance of fatalities while protecting the owner absolutely even if this risks others.
- masonic 7y ago
  It's essentially unheard-of that one's own failure to use a seatbelt results in injury or death to some other party hit by the flying driver/passenger who was unbelted. That's the appropriate analogy.
wutbrodo 7y ago
Do you not fly in airplanes? People make tradeoffs like this ALL the time. It's why the term "freak accident" even exists. People trade off freak accidents against convenience and quality of life, let alone a _higher_ rate of non-freak accidents.

michaelmrose 7y ago

Given 100 individuals who would have died in everyday accidents all would prefer a 99% chance of survival. Given a population of a million all would prefer a 1 in a million chance of death under a semi to a 1 in 10k chance of being smeared in a more average fashion. Your argument is the same one used against seat belts with people advocating a strictly inferior survival strategy to prevent a rare misadventure.

iso947 7y ago
That’s not how it works for humans though. “Other drivers are terrible. I am above average. Other drivers underride. I don’t”
DrScump 7y ago
Let's say your autodrive system replaces 100,000 driver-hours. Let's say those driver-hours would have resulted in 3 deaths of others (in vehicles or pedestrians) but your autodrive results in 1 different death (which wouldn't have occurred with the human drivers). Your stats are no comfort at all to the loved ones of your victim. It's like the Trolley Problem but the humans are unidentifiable.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The trolley problem challenges people who don't consider choosing not to act equally an active choice or intuitively feel that action is different than inaction. I would always pick the most valuable to me side and pull the switch or leave it be to bring about the better end result. Given the availability of self driving vehicles that reduce mortality choosing to drive oneself and kill more people is an unethical choice that will be as little comfort to the 3 victims as the one.
  - DrScump 7y ago
    I would always pick the most valuable to me side Of course, when you know nothing about the would-be victims. But on a pure numbers theoretical basis, you autodrive veers out away from the three killers fleeing police by driving on the wrong side of the road in favor of running down two kids in a crosswalk. Real life is complicated.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      Where did I say I would decide value purely by number of people? Why did you include the fact that they were killers fleeing police? Are, you supposing that I will somehow infer this in the 2 seconds I have to react or you just positing completele nonsense to muddy the waters with emotions? Pedanticaly one would virtually never choose to hit pedestrians instead of cars because pedestrians don't have crumple zones or air bags. The big question is should cars prioritize the owners health or the greater good and If the latter what is the greater good. I don't think people will turn on a product that might decide to kill them to save a school bus so it's simplified to minimizing chance of fatalities while protecting the owner absolutely even if this risks others.
masonic 7y ago
It's essentially unheard-of that one's own failure to use a seatbelt results in injury or death to some other party hit by the flying driver/passenger who was unbelted. That's the appropriate analogy.

wutbrodo 7y ago

Do you not fly in airplanes? People make tradeoffs like this ALL the time. It's why the term "freak accident" even exists. People trade off freak accidents against convenience and quality of life, let alone a _higher_ rate of non-freak accidents.