4 ms·

I think you misunderstand the argument. It is that if, hypothetically, FSD really did save human lives on average then it should be accepted as the default mode

I think you misunderstand the argument. It is that if, hypothetically, FSD really did save human lives on average then it should be accepted as the default mode of driving. It would be a net win in human lives after all. But the "should" can also acknowledge that people irrationally won't accept this net life-saving technology because it will redistribute the deaths in ways which they're not accustomed to. So it's as much a statement about utility as a statement about the need to convince people. Of course this is all theoretical. If we had solid evidence that it performs better than humans in some scenarios but worse in others then we could save even more lives by only allowing it to run in those cases where it does and only do shadow-mode piloting in the others (or those who opt into lab rat mode). Enabling it by default only makes sense if we do know that it performs better on average and we do not know when it does.

paxys 5y ago
I don't agree with the former argument either. I'm not going to accept a self driving system unless it increases my personal safety. If the system doubles my accident rate but cuts that of drunks by a factor of 10 (thus improving the national average), it isn't irrational to not want it for myself.
- the8472 5y ago
  > The car has to be better at driving than me But you can also be a pedestrian or passenger. Do you not want everyone else to be less likely to kill you? Also, should you really trust your own estimate of your driving safety? > McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions of driving skills (examples include the "dangerous–safe" dimension and the "considerate–inconsiderate" dimension). Only a small minority rated themselves as below the median, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being an above-average driver.[30]
- aeternum 5y ago
  Why do you believe the system is likely to double your accident rate? Statistically autopilot gets in fewer accidents than the average human driver. And if you believe you are an above average driver, why do you believe you would be unable to intervene if needed?

paxys 5y ago

I don't agree with the former argument either. I'm not going to accept a self driving system unless it increases my personal safety. If the system doubles my accident rate but cuts that of drunks by a factor of 10 (thus improving the national average), it isn't irrational to not want it for myself.

the8472 5y ago
> The car has to be better at driving than me But you can also be a pedestrian or passenger. Do you not want everyone else to be less likely to kill you? Also, should you really trust your own estimate of your driving safety? > McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions of driving skills (examples include the "dangerous–safe" dimension and the "considerate–inconsiderate" dimension). Only a small minority rated themselves as below the median, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being an above-average driver.[30]
aeternum 5y ago
Why do you believe the system is likely to double your accident rate? Statistically autopilot gets in fewer accidents than the average human driver. And if you believe you are an above average driver, why do you believe you would be unable to intervene if needed?