4 ms·

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.
• rhacker 5y ago
  It doesn't beat the existing standard.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]