3 ms·
No, if there are lives saved by self-driving cars, they will primarily be in instances where the driver was distracted/drunk/high. Thus any competent lawyer wor
by semi-extrinsic 6y ago
No, if there are lives saved by self-driving cars, they will primarily be in instances where the driver was distracted/drunk/high. Thus any competent lawyer workin a case against a self-driving car company in the case where their car killed someone, will argue (rightly!) that those sane lives could also have been saved by less high-tech measures, such as AI detecting undesired human behaviour and putting the car in limp-home-mode or similar.
In that case you are saving the same lives and not causing any new fatalities, but it's not a super cool tech that will attract lots of investment. So the choice to implement self driving was ultimately putting profits over human lives.
- shkkmo 6y agoI think detecting impaired and distracted drivers is a lot harder than you think and more high tech since you need that detection in addition to the ability to limp home.
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y agoThere are very trivial situations where even current Teslas are safer than previous cars: while I wouldn’t trust my life to Autopilot, I’d rather drive next to a drunk driver using autopilot than one driving “manually”. Other simple things, like detecting excessive swerving and drifting out of the land, would be relatively straightforward signals to the car to maybe limit speed and encourage pulling over.
- kaba0 6y agoDetection is pretty much where AIs excel so I doubt it would be a hard problem. And it could also just disable driving the car and that’s it, saving the same amount of people.
- goshx 6y agoWhat you are looking for is a horse.
- troupe 6y agoI've never had my car intentionally try to kill me, but a horse has. :)