3 ms·
It's not apples to oranges. If a human interferes then a human is now driving. That human has a worse record of non accidents than the computer. Ergo, that huma
by bananabreakfast 7y ago
It's not apples to oranges. If a human interferes then a human is now driving. That human has a worse record of non accidents than the computer. Ergo, that human is making the driving record worse not better.
- Slartie 7y agoYou know that it's not the job of the human driver in experimental self-driving vehicles to just take control every once in a while, when he feels he'd like to drive a little? A human interferes in precisely those situations in which the machine either decided to surrender or - worse - started doing something stupid and the human caught it quickly enough to prevent an accident. It is safe to assume that the human has a much better safety record in such situations. And who does the human surrender to when he fails at driving? Should we also not count human accidents that could have been prevented if there was a world-class race driver ready to take over when the actual driver makes the failure?