4 ms·

Problem is humans, we'll treat L3 as L4 and get distracted enough by that funny video or a phone call. Which brings the ques is L3 really better than whatever

• toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Humans already drive distracted (phone calls, texting, eating, makeup), no automation required. If the automation improves the accident and death rate, it’s still a win.
  • Balgair 6y ago
    One solution to bridge the gap between 'mostly' self driving and 'totally' self driving is to increase the safety systems. Currently, safety systems for the people in the car are very good. But for people outside the car, they are very bad. If you can make it such that the car is very safe for all the people in a possible accident, then maybe the AI problem won't be such a problem. Granted, that's a hard problem too, but we're pretty good with the theorems and modeling that goes into safety. It's more of an economics problem, not a design one.
    • toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Agreed, but the "safer for the outside" systems aren't (in my opinion) automation; they're regulations and policy to lower vehicle mass (more mass + velocity = more potential harm) and to be more antagonistic to vehicular traffic to force it to behave with greater care [1] [2] (regardless of whom it in control of the vehicle) around vulnerable stakeholders such as pedestrians and bicyclists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming [2] https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/traffic-calming.shtml https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/traffic-calmin...
  • airstrike 6y ago
    Only to the extent that automation doesn't increase the level / frequency of that distraction.