3 ms·
> they just have to be better than human drivers. That's where the difference in our outlook is: The way I see it, people can stomach the existence of ridicu
by uniqueid 6y ago
> they just have to be better than human drivers.
That's where the difference in our outlook is:
The way I see it, people can stomach the existence of ridiculous accidents (ridiculous in the sense that the details are "absurd", not just "very grim") when they can blame a human.
I don't think many people will tolerate even occasional "self-driving" accidents if the circumstance show a human would have recognized the danger.
For a self-driving car to be fit-for-purpose, it can't run over kittens at low speeds on an empty road - even if they're very small kittens that don't exceed some motion-sensing threshold. That requires common-sense reasoning.
- grecy 6y agoI think you're absolutely right there will be push-back if the self driving cars crash is stupid ways, but again, it's all about the numbers. Planes still fall out of the sky for stupid reasons (maintenance errors, mostly) yet the numbers say they're very, very VERY safe, so people use them. Once the facts show self driving cars are safer than human driving cars (even if they sometimes crash in stupid ways), there will be no holding back.