3 ms·

> sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. I disagree that they're sensationalized. Self-driving systems are designed to improve user safety, but w

> sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. I disagree that they're sensationalized. Self-driving systems are designed to improve user safety, but when they end up making mistakes that human drivers _wouldn't_ make then it's appropriate to thoroughly investigate these systems. > is because they were self-driving. Well, precisely. We tolerate driving accidents because we know that the mobility that cars provide end up offering far more value to the world than the occasional accidents that we end up tolerating. What's the trade with self-driving cars? What is the technology enabling that is worth the possible additional risks? > car getting in a minor fenderbender and equating it with the safety of the entire car industry? I don't think that comparison offers anything interesting, and it ignores the long and storied history of improving automobile safety. Look into Ralph Naders "Unsafe At Any Speed" if you really want to see people looking at "regular" accidents and deciding there was something to be fixed.

stjo 6y ago
> human drivers _wouldn't_ make But human drivers make a lot of mistakes that computer drivers _wouldn't_. If it is safER than humans - it is better. No need to be perfect.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  And the way you establish safety is by doing a lot of miles with trained employees and clearly established liability, not by releasing alpha software to the untrained public with complete liability disclaimers.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  Citation needed. So far, they have mostly driven into static obstacles on highways, the only environment where the vendors even allow to use their "self-driving" system because of the overwhelmingly favorable conditions.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  Yes, self-driving systems will have fewer deaths/distance driven and therefore be statistically safer than human drivers. But human drivers make human errors, understandable, explainable, common errors that we are used to, and therefore we underestimate their severity. Self-driving cars will make space-alien machine-logic crazy weird and definitely not human errors, they will cause fatalities in situations where any reasonable human wouldn't, and that is much scarier than human errors, and therefore we overestimate their severity. And that makes self-driving a very, very hard sell, it's simply not enough to be statistically better on just the numbers, you have to be psychologically better, and that's a huge hurdle.

stjo 6y ago

> human drivers _wouldn't_ make But human drivers make a lot of mistakes that computer drivers _wouldn't_. If it is safER than humans - it is better. No need to be perfect.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
And the way you establish safety is by doing a lot of miles with trained employees and clearly established liability, not by releasing alpha software to the untrained public with complete liability disclaimers.
stefan_ 6y ago
Citation needed. So far, they have mostly driven into static obstacles on highways, the only environment where the vendors even allow to use their "self-driving" system because of the overwhelmingly favorable conditions.
henrikschroder 6y ago
Yes, self-driving systems will have fewer deaths/distance driven and therefore be statistically safer than human drivers. But human drivers make human errors, understandable, explainable, common errors that we are used to, and therefore we underestimate their severity. Self-driving cars will make space-alien machine-logic crazy weird and definitely not human errors, they will cause fatalities in situations where any reasonable human wouldn't, and that is much scarier than human errors, and therefore we overestimate their severity. And that makes self-driving a very, very hard sell, it's simply not enough to be statistically better on just the numbers, you have to be psychologically better, and that's a huge hurdle.