7 ms·
And they are all correct. Except for when they haven't slept, or aren't paying attention etc. That is not a good baseline to compare self-driving cars against
by tjoff 6y ago
And they are all correct.
Except for when they haven't slept, or aren't paying attention etc.
That is not a good baseline to compare self-driving cars against. That would be horrific.
- the8472 6y agoThe average baseline involves a driver that is not paying attention or hasn't slept X% of the time. You cannot magically wave away all the bad days and pretend only the good humans are on the streets. The bad days happen, people die. The autonomous vehicle only has to do better than that. That's the whole point.
- tjoff 6y agoStatistically no. But you need to convince people - that is the point. We are not rational. We do not respond well to a car running straight into a barrier or stand-still vehicle at 100 km/h without even attempting to brake (such as the failure modes that Tesla has demonstrated) even if it does well most of the time and has better statistics than an average human. And further, as noted in the thread, a good part of driving is assessing other vehicles and vehicles behaving oddly (even if it is objectively better in isolation) is really bad and will increase the risk of collisions. I think google have experienced this, that people do not respond well do the driving technique of their car since it doesn't behave as a human - not that it does anything wrong.
- the8472 6y agoIndividuals may not act rationally but regulators and insurance companies with their birds-eye view will see the hard numbers and hopefully provide incentives aligned with the rational choice.
- tjoff 6y agoI hope not. I expect them to produce cars that are much better than the average human before setting them free on the road. That is the rational choice given the human psyche. We can barely even convince people that vaccines are good.
- the8472 6y agoJust as with vaccines waiting for better cars means letting more people die in the meantime. That is a grim hope.
- tjoff 6y agoIf companies rush this (as Tesla and Uber already has!) too much the backlash will likely set back self-driving unnecessarily. I believe a more careful approach will get broader adoption and likely save more lives.
- the8472 6y agoI didn't suggest that the technology should be rushed and I agree that a careful approach can save more lives. But what constitutes "careful" matters here. For example if a city chooses to offer robotaxi discounts to people with bad driving records (before some cutoff date to avoid perverse incentives) then even an average taxi fleet could be a net-benefit even though the taxis do not perform better than the general population. And that's just in terms of lives saved, not counting the other benefits of having cheap transportation.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoRegulators at some point defer to voters. It’s going to matter much more what voters are led to believe than what the numbers say.