8 ms·
Not how it works. If there was a way to prevent all smoke related cancers but it randomly kills 1 million person a year would you say it is also a moral imperat
by mijamo 5y ago
Not how it works. If there was a way to prevent all smoke related cancers but it randomly kills 1 million person a year would you say it is also a moral imperative? After all it is a net gain of lives.
Total casualties is not the only the to consider. You have to think about responsibilities, control, separate cases etc.
In addition, currently FSD is NOT safer than manual driving when comparing on equal conditions.
- marcusverus 5y agoI think we’re on the same page. My primary point was that we don’t need a 100% perfect solution for autonomous driving to make sense. From a regulatory perspective, I do think that a system that results in a ‘net savings of human life’ should be permitted, even though removing the human from the equation would likely change the distribution of driving deaths, such that some people (like exceptionally careful drivers) may be marginally more likely to die in such a system. Those people should of course have the choice to drive themselves. From the perspective of an individual, a ‘net savings of human life’ may not be a good enough threshold. I personally would not want to put my child in a self-driving car unless I felt confident that it was safer than driving myself, and the knowledge that the AI was “statistically better than the average driver” would not instill sufficient confidence.