3 ms·
Most of your point is just the Lake Wobegon fallacy at work. Obviously you think you're not a below average driver. But everyone does, and lots of them are wr
by newacct583 6y ago
Most of your point is just the Lake Wobegon fallacy at work. Obviously you think you're not a below average driver. But everyone does, and lots of them are wrong.
The part that isn't is that you're imagining a non-linear distribution where a significant fraction of accidents are the fault of these identifiable "bad drivers" and that the MEDIAN human driver is actually better than the average/median SDV.
To which I ask: is there evidence for this? It's a new argument, and I haven't seen it made before.
- anfilt 6y agoIf a self driving car is only as good as the average driver then by definition 50% of people are a better. How is that a fallacy? It also could be considerably higher depending on the skew of the distribution. Depending how much bad drivers lower the average.
- newacct583 6y agoThat's not a fallacy, but it doesn't seem like an interesting point. Your comment above seemed deeper. Apologies if that's all you meant.
- anfilt 6y agoLike from that point alone your asking a large portion of people to trust something less capable than them-selves. We should be aiming for the higher/upper percentiles not the average. Especially, considering how fast a digital control system can operate, average is a horribly low bar. -Edit- If throw in the effect that a lot people over estimate their abilities your going to get even fewer people who trust a self driving car that is only as good as average.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]