4 ms·

I think firstly it's going to be tough with long-tail edge case deaths to really be sure the numbers will be less than human drivers until self-driving cars are

I think firstly it's going to be tough with long-tail edge case deaths to really be sure the numbers will be less than human drivers until self-driving cars are unleashed in sufficient numbers. Secondly, even if you're right (and you may well be) - imagine that a common edge case was a small child jumping out in front of the car. Would we want to accept a vehicle that consistently ran them over? The raw numbers might be better but that doesn't fully paint a picture of what those numbers would look like. I also think the 'will randomly kill people, but rarely' aspect of self-driving cars will be majorly off-putting on a very human level. And finally there's a perception issue here - the self-driving hype is around the idea that the car is effectively being driven by a far better driver than a human, the second it turns out it does really crazy things sometimes (doesn't even have to involve fatalities necessarily) is also going to put people off I think. I personally prefer the idea of driver assists (responsibly developed so drivers aren't just distracted) aiding driver safety while we work on a supplemental self-driving solution, or perhaps as discussed in the article create some infrastructure along roads to make things more certain. I am far from being against self-driving cars, I just feel the timeline is longer than currently hyped.

pedrocr 6y ago
I agree completely. My take from the situation is much more that we are far far too lenient with our standards for cars, roads, and particularly drivers. We've set the bar so low that the technology has a good chance of clearing it soon but only serve to reveal how actually uncomfortable we are with such a low bar that we've normalized over time.
- Pet_Ant 6y ago
  In many parts of North America you cannot function in society without a license. Therefore, we have sympathy for people because are we going to ask people who aren't good drivers to put their lives on hold on the off chance they kill someone? Better to let them all drive and vilify the unfortunate ones that do. However, with machines they have no personal lives so they are afforded no slack. Humans get to make mistakes because they are only human, but machines get no such affordances... even if the net benefit is there.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  Another point might be attribution. It's horrible when a driver is tired, drunk or simply misses something - but on a human level, you can understand what's going on. Also, you know the guy at fault and that he will be punished (at least, somewhat). An autonomous vehicle, in comparison, is not relatable at all. Some equation delivered some wrong result, maybe it was something in the training set, so that's why the car suddenly drove into you. Bad luck. If you're lucky, you get some damage payments from the car company, if you happen to have enough money for a very good lawyer. Sure, as a technical person, I understand some of the possible errors, but it still feels like a complex system that one cannot relate too with hardly understandable edge case behaviour. That's probably why we're so much more lenient with humans.
- K0balt 6y ago
  Might be interesting to integrate an AI based self.drivinf system with several additional driver assistance systems, each using fundamentally different algorithmic solutions, and perhaps even some different sensors.

pedrocr 6y ago

I agree completely. My take from the situation is much more that we are far far too lenient with our standards for cars, roads, and particularly drivers. We've set the bar so low that the technology has a good chance of clearing it soon but only serve to reveal how actually uncomfortable we are with such a low bar that we've normalized over time.

Pet_Ant 6y ago
In many parts of North America you cannot function in society without a license. Therefore, we have sympathy for people because are we going to ask people who aren't good drivers to put their lives on hold on the off chance they kill someone? Better to let them all drive and vilify the unfortunate ones that do. However, with machines they have no personal lives so they are afforded no slack. Humans get to make mistakes because they are only human, but machines get no such affordances... even if the net benefit is there.
Sebb767 6y ago
Another point might be attribution. It's horrible when a driver is tired, drunk or simply misses something - but on a human level, you can understand what's going on. Also, you know the guy at fault and that he will be punished (at least, somewhat). An autonomous vehicle, in comparison, is not relatable at all. Some equation delivered some wrong result, maybe it was something in the training set, so that's why the car suddenly drove into you. Bad luck. If you're lucky, you get some damage payments from the car company, if you happen to have enough money for a very good lawyer. Sure, as a technical person, I understand some of the possible errors, but it still feels like a complex system that one cannot relate too with hardly understandable edge case behaviour. That's probably why we're so much more lenient with humans.
K0balt 6y ago
Might be interesting to integrate an AI based self.drivinf system with several additional driver assistance systems, each using fundamentally different algorithmic solutions, and perhaps even some different sensors.