8 ms·

Driving is already a Russian roulette right? If autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers as advertised the barrel would just have more capacity.

pydry 5y ago
Self driving cars will be as safe as the level of criminal liability faced by the makers. Regulatory capture means it wont be high and the potential profits to be realized from first mover advantage here means there will be a significant incentive to "move fast and break things". So to speak. I'd feel safe if an executive who OKs a software update that kills someone risks significant jail time. If that means no self driving cars for 20 more years then I am totally fine with that. That would simply mean that they werent safer as promised.
- snarf21 5y ago
  I agree that there is a significant monetary incentive to "move fast and kill people". In the end, paying out a few $MM to random families is financially minimal compared to the $BBB that are up for grabs. We will never really have executives going to jail for things like this. We've built a system of profits > anything else.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    This has been the status quo for the whole car industry for decades. If executives were jailed for car accidents people we would have trains and trams in every corner.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Ordinary cars are testable, we understands quality of merials, corrosion, etc. When it comes to AI droving, noone has a fucking clue what it will do in next 50 milliseconds. Teslas literally mis-classified a semi trailer for an underpass The opportunity for shenanighans is endless
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      ... and if makers of kitchen implements were jailed for knife accidents/crime then we'd be eating soup with plastic spoons for every meal. It doesn't make sense to have universal product liability in that way: there are too many creative idiots.
      - eeZah7Ux 5y ago
        In terms of complexity and security features a car is much closer to an airplane than a knife. It's very disingenuous to compare it to a knife.
        NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        Not really; the fact is that sharp objects and heavy objects moving at speed are both inherently hazardous because of the basic nature of the physical world, but those same attributes make them extremely useful. I don't object at all to holding manufacturers accountable for defective products; but it makes no sense to say "if your product is involved in an accident, you go to jail", which was the premise of the comment to which I responded.
        eeZah7Ux 5y ago
        > Not really Citation needed. > was the premise of the comment to which I responded. It clearly wasn't.
- notriddle 5y ago
  As if automakers haven't found plenty of ways to make human-piloted cars less safe in exchange for profit.
- moduspol 5y ago
  > I'd feel safe if an executive who OKs a software update that kills someone risks significant jail time. If that means no self driving cars for 20 more years then I am totally fine with that. The status quo is 139 people dying every day in the US in traffic accidents. If we replaced all cars with self-driving ones, an executive could approve a software update every single day that kills only 100 and it could very well still be a net benefit to society. These discussions always seem to implicitly presume that we're currently at zero deaths. We're not--we just don't hear about them. Every year we delay self driving cars is more people dying, not fewer.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >These discussions always seem to implicitly presume that we're currently at zero deaths. I never presumed that and never would. I do presume that if we watered down criminal liability for reckless driving then we'd get way, way more than 139. The current regulatory framework surrounding self driving cars is rather like making drink driving subject to a $30 fine. I would be surprised if it starts out safer than humans.
verisimi 5y ago
Define 'safer'. If you have not paid your taxes, get in to your car, and it drives you to the local court-house or police station, this is a new risk, no?
- bmicraft 5y ago
  Considering the people least likely to pay their taxes are those who could afford them easiest I would be all for that.
- walkhour 5y ago
  I was thinking in terms of casualties per miles driven. Agreed that this definition doesn't capture all the danger.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
    Casualties per miles driven is a terrible stat for current self-driving technology because as it stands, it forces drivers to take over in the most dangerous situations. And you can't generalize for all miles in cars capable of self-driving because the population who own cars like that are not representative of the average. It's a very tricky thing to accurately measure whether it's safer for an individual to drive themselves or let the car do it for them.
- vkou 5y ago
  It would be actually be better for the car to drive itself to the repo man, if you miss payments on it / are refusing to pay your debts to the government.
bottled_poe 5y ago
Statistical equivalence is one thing, but the risk will shift within the population. Let’s set the bar a bit higher than above average? The average driver is a dumbass. autonomous vehicles should be expected to consistently make better decisions than the best drivers, not just the average ones.
- cannaceo 5y ago
  Why is beating the existing standard not enough?
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    Presumably, if a specific person is a very good driver, entering an automated vehicle that is merely better than average driver, with no controls to interject, results in a net reduction of safety for this individual. More specifically, what IF or rather WHEN there is an incident that could've been prevented by human interjection, but wasn't? Other aspect is, why are we only ever discussing these separately? What is the safety of a automation-assisted human? Can we get to the point where safety is better than either system alone?
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > Presumably, if a specific person is a very good driver, entering an automated vehicle that is merely better than average driver, with no controls to interject, results in a net reduction of safety for this individual. But for far more individuals there will be a net increase in safety, moreover, since traffic accidents don't only imperil drivers, pedestrians and safe drivers will also experience an increase in safety due to average drivers using just-above-average automation. > What is the safety of a automation-assisted human? That's where we're at today with systems like Tesla's Autopilot.
    - john_minsk 5y ago
      We will. For consumers like you there will be a $100k option to increase safety by adding sensors/compute power or something else on top of a base model. But the ultimate game here is to free people from the need to drive cars for a living or pay someone to do so. This will also open a lot of other optimisations to human life, which exist now due to cost of human labor. If human stays in the car - this mission is failed. + It's not like if you are the most careful driver you are safe - if a drunk no-licensed jerk aims for your car - you are dead due to his lack of driving ability, not yours.
bcrosby95 5y ago
Car accidents kill someone every 100 million miles driven in the US. Anyone claiming they're safer now is either selling something or doesn't know what they're talking about.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  Being safer now is not a necessary claim to support the above (whether or not it's true). We don't ban student drivers from the roads.
- nindalf 5y ago
  Could you share how many accidents happen, rather than deaths? With a source as well, if you happen to be looking it up.
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    Would you use an autonomous car if the death rate increases but accident rate decreases? I figure deaths per million miles is a good stat
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Most people choose to use cars despite that increasing both death rate and accident rate.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >Most people choose to use cars despite that increasing both death rate and accident rate. In most of the US (not where I live, thankfully) the "choice" is use a car or stay home. Not much of a choice.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        Sure, the fact that people choose the more appealing option doesn't mean there wasn't a choice. That's just what people do when they have multiple options: they choose the one that's best according to whatever their criteria are. And many people might make a similar choice to reclaim multiple hours per day of driving time to do other things (like sleep, work, relax, etc.) while their car drives itself.
pizza 5y ago
I'm assuming a couple things here, but 1. isn't a steering wheel the only plausible failsafe control for somebody supervising these experimental machines? Not sure what other control interface would be better in life-or-death instants/moments, plus any driver can carry over their preexisting skills in that situation. If better emergency controls than steering wheels exist, fine, I guess. 2. Isn't the question not safety(autonomous vehicle) > safety(human driver) but rather safety(autonomous vehicle + human control fail-safe) > safety(autonomous vehicle alone) Just don't understand why, on the face of it, the law is being changed in a way that I guess to me personally implies trials without common-sense-interface human intervention controls is legal?

pydry 5y ago

Self driving cars will be as safe as the level of criminal liability faced by the makers. Regulatory capture means it wont be high and the potential profits to be realized from first mover advantage here means there will be a significant incentive to "move fast and break things". So to speak. I'd feel safe if an executive who OKs a software update that kills someone risks significant jail time. If that means no self driving cars for 20 more years then I am totally fine with that. That would simply mean that they werent safer as promised.

snarf21 5y ago
I agree that there is a significant monetary incentive to "move fast and kill people". In the end, paying out a few $MM to random families is financially minimal compared to the $BBB that are up for grabs. We will never really have executives going to jail for things like this. We've built a system of profits > anything else.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  This has been the status quo for the whole car industry for decades. If executives were jailed for car accidents people we would have trains and trams in every corner.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Ordinary cars are testable, we understands quality of merials, corrosion, etc. When it comes to AI droving, noone has a fucking clue what it will do in next 50 milliseconds. Teslas literally mis-classified a semi trailer for an underpass The opportunity for shenanighans is endless
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    ... and if makers of kitchen implements were jailed for knife accidents/crime then we'd be eating soup with plastic spoons for every meal. It doesn't make sense to have universal product liability in that way: there are too many creative idiots.
    - eeZah7Ux 5y ago
      In terms of complexity and security features a car is much closer to an airplane than a knife. It's very disingenuous to compare it to a knife.
      - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        Not really; the fact is that sharp objects and heavy objects moving at speed are both inherently hazardous because of the basic nature of the physical world, but those same attributes make them extremely useful. I don't object at all to holding manufacturers accountable for defective products; but it makes no sense to say "if your product is involved in an accident, you go to jail", which was the premise of the comment to which I responded.
        eeZah7Ux 5y ago
        > Not really Citation needed. > was the premise of the comment to which I responded. It clearly wasn't.
notriddle 5y ago
As if automakers haven't found plenty of ways to make human-piloted cars less safe in exchange for profit.
moduspol 5y ago
> I'd feel safe if an executive who OKs a software update that kills someone risks significant jail time. If that means no self driving cars for 20 more years then I am totally fine with that. The status quo is 139 people dying every day in the US in traffic accidents. If we replaced all cars with self-driving ones, an executive could approve a software update every single day that kills only 100 and it could very well still be a net benefit to society. These discussions always seem to implicitly presume that we're currently at zero deaths. We're not--we just don't hear about them. Every year we delay self driving cars is more people dying, not fewer.
- pydry 5y ago
  >These discussions always seem to implicitly presume that we're currently at zero deaths. I never presumed that and never would. I do presume that if we watered down criminal liability for reckless driving then we'd get way, way more than 139. The current regulatory framework surrounding self driving cars is rather like making drink driving subject to a $30 fine. I would be surprised if it starts out safer than humans.

verisimi 5y ago

Define 'safer'. If you have not paid your taxes, get in to your car, and it drives you to the local court-house or police station, this is a new risk, no?

bmicraft 5y ago
Considering the people least likely to pay their taxes are those who could afford them easiest I would be all for that.
walkhour 5y ago
I was thinking in terms of casualties per miles driven. Agreed that this definition doesn't capture all the danger.
- frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
  Casualties per miles driven is a terrible stat for current self-driving technology because as it stands, it forces drivers to take over in the most dangerous situations. And you can't generalize for all miles in cars capable of self-driving because the population who own cars like that are not representative of the average. It's a very tricky thing to accurately measure whether it's safer for an individual to drive themselves or let the car do it for them.
vkou 5y ago
It would be actually be better for the car to drive itself to the repo man, if you miss payments on it / are refusing to pay your debts to the government.

bottled_poe 5y ago

Statistical equivalence is one thing, but the risk will shift within the population. Let’s set the bar a bit higher than above average? The average driver is a dumbass. autonomous vehicles should be expected to consistently make better decisions than the best drivers, not just the average ones.

cannaceo 5y ago
Why is beating the existing standard not enough?
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Presumably, if a specific person is a very good driver, entering an automated vehicle that is merely better than average driver, with no controls to interject, results in a net reduction of safety for this individual. More specifically, what IF or rather WHEN there is an incident that could've been prevented by human interjection, but wasn't? Other aspect is, why are we only ever discussing these separately? What is the safety of a automation-assisted human? Can we get to the point where safety is better than either system alone?
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Presumably, if a specific person is a very good driver, entering an automated vehicle that is merely better than average driver, with no controls to interject, results in a net reduction of safety for this individual. But for far more individuals there will be a net increase in safety, moreover, since traffic accidents don't only imperil drivers, pedestrians and safe drivers will also experience an increase in safety due to average drivers using just-above-average automation. > What is the safety of a automation-assisted human? That's where we're at today with systems like Tesla's Autopilot.
  - john_minsk 5y ago
    We will. For consumers like you there will be a $100k option to increase safety by adding sensors/compute power or something else on top of a base model. But the ultimate game here is to free people from the need to drive cars for a living or pay someone to do so. This will also open a lot of other optimisations to human life, which exist now due to cost of human labor. If human stays in the car - this mission is failed. + It's not like if you are the most careful driver you are safe - if a drunk no-licensed jerk aims for your car - you are dead due to his lack of driving ability, not yours.

bcrosby95 5y ago

Car accidents kill someone every 100 million miles driven in the US. Anyone claiming they're safer now is either selling something or doesn't know what they're talking about.

abecedarius 5y ago
Being safer now is not a necessary claim to support the above (whether or not it's true). We don't ban student drivers from the roads.
nindalf 5y ago
Could you share how many accidents happen, rather than deaths? With a source as well, if you happen to be looking it up.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  Would you use an autonomous car if the death rate increases but accident rate decreases? I figure deaths per million miles is a good stat
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Most people choose to use cars despite that increasing both death rate and accident rate.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Most people choose to use cars despite that increasing both death rate and accident rate. In most of the US (not where I live, thankfully) the "choice" is use a car or stay home. Not much of a choice.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Sure, the fact that people choose the more appealing option doesn't mean there wasn't a choice. That's just what people do when they have multiple options: they choose the one that's best according to whatever their criteria are. And many people might make a similar choice to reclaim multiple hours per day of driving time to do other things (like sleep, work, relax, etc.) while their car drives itself.

pizza 5y ago

I'm assuming a couple things here, but 1. isn't a steering wheel the only plausible failsafe control for somebody supervising these experimental machines? Not sure what other control interface would be better in life-or-death instants/moments, plus any driver can carry over their preexisting skills in that situation. If better emergency controls than steering wheels exist, fine, I guess. 2. Isn't the question not safety(autonomous vehicle) > safety(human driver) but rather safety(autonomous vehicle + human control fail-safe) > safety(autonomous vehicle alone) Just don't understand why, on the face of it, the law is being changed in a way that I guess to me personally implies trials without common-sense-interface human intervention controls is legal?