5 ms·

I'm not sure if I'm optimistic about autonomous vehicles or just very pessimistic about human drivers. I have no confidence that the next driver making a left t

I'm not sure if I'm optimistic about autonomous vehicles or just very pessimistic about human drivers. I have no confidence that the next driver making a left turn while I'm crossing the road won't kill me. I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me, even if the software may have the occasional bug, than with a human who may or may not prioritize my life over whatever else it is they have going on that day.

forbiddenvoid 5y ago
Literally, when my dad taught me to drive, the first thing he told me was: 'Every other driver on the road is an idiot and a murderer. Act accordingly.'
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- robbrown451 5y ago
  So, don't go onto public roads at all?
bluGill 5y ago
Today I'm not sure which I have more confidence in. However long term I'm confident that we can eliminate enough bugs that the autonomous vehicle is better. Once statistics start to come out (real ones that account for all factors, not potentially biases ones from the company making the cars) I'll be looking for the time when we ban non-autonomous cars.
bluefirebrand 5y ago
> I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me I think the real concern that the car is actually programmed explicitly to kill you if it has to, to ensure it's own safety or the safety of it's riders or something.
- sweetbitter 5y ago
  Humans do this as well. Many bus drivers may be told to not stop even if a car gets directly in their way, so as to avoid killing all of the children inside - especially so when at heights.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  I think a human is far more likely than a car to have a self-protection tendency. If a car is programmed that way, how does that benefit the car company (or the programmer)? It's just a different family that sues them if someone dies that didn't have to die. Are you thinking they could advertise it as "prioritizes your life more than random other people!" That's just begging for a lawsuit. And they especially wouldn't program the car to protect itself above a human life. Why would you think it would? The car is not nearly valuable enough to outweigh the cost of a lawsuit.
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    A human is less likely to mistake a garbage can for an oncoming car and then make the choice to run me over out of self preservation, though. Comparing a car programmed for self preservation versus a human seeking their self preservation only really makes sense if the car and human are both equally capable of assessing threats. At the moment I don't think cars are at the same level. Maybe I'm wrong. Humans are fallible too of course.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      You are mixing competence with agenda. Which is it? If you are concerned it is not as competent as a human, fine, that's defensible. But that's not what you said. You said you were concerned about its agenda, that it would be intentionally prioritize the lives of its passengers over other lives (and even suggested it would prioritize the preservation of the vehicle itself more highly) you said.... >I think the real concern that the car is actually programmed explicitly to kill you if it has to, to ensure it's own safety or the safety of it's riders or something. My comment was about that....the "agenda" issue, which is 100% what your comment was about. To be clear (if I wasn't in a previous message) There is NO incentive for it to be explicitly programmed to do that, since the company could be equally sued by pedestrians as it could by passengers. There IS incentive for a human to behave that way, since natural selection built a self protection motivation deeply into the human brain. There is also very strong incentive AGAINST prioritizing protection of the vehicle itself over any human -- passenger or not. For both human drivers and driving software programmers. Anyway, you seem to be changing your argument to one of competence, which to me is a completely different discussion. (I think self driving cars are better at some things and humans are better at other things, but eventually cars will be better -- or at least equal -- for the vast majority)
datavirtue 5y ago
I'm wondering why pedestrian accident prevention isn't standard equipment already. We have sensors all over, adaptive cruise...everything is in place except the junior-developer grade software routine to stop instead of hitting shit. Shows where the priorities are.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Are you saying that they don't work hard to avoid having their cars hit pedestrians? Really? And no, this isn't "junior-developer grade software routine." They also don't want the car slamming on its brakes in the middle of traffic because a plastic bag blew by in front of the car.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Please, tell me about all the cars right now that avoid hitting pedestrians and bicycles and wheel chairs. If impact immenent (7th grade algebra) then stop.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      What's your point? You're saying you could apply 7th grade algebra to this problem and make these cars considerably safer, but that the people working on it now just don't bother? Because they're evil? Or what? I don't know what to say.
      - ruds 5y ago
        Coming in late, but I think you're misunderstanding the suggestion, which was to make pedestrian avoidance standard equipment on all new cars, not just autonomous vehicles.
shadowgovt 5y ago
The nice thing about self-driving cars is that when fatal errors are found, the software can be updated so the car will never make that mistake again. We can't do that with humans; instead, we have probabilities and known badly-designed roads that incentivize (or don't disincentivize) driving in a way likelier to cause death. The only way to fix those issues at scale is redesign the roads, often for less efficient traffic throughput.

forbiddenvoid 5y ago

Literally, when my dad taught me to drive, the first thing he told me was: 'Every other driver on the road is an idiot and a murderer. Act accordingly.'

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
robbrown451 5y ago
So, don't go onto public roads at all?

bluGill 5y ago

Today I'm not sure which I have more confidence in. However long term I'm confident that we can eliminate enough bugs that the autonomous vehicle is better. Once statistics start to come out (real ones that account for all factors, not potentially biases ones from the company making the cars) I'll be looking for the time when we ban non-autonomous cars.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

> I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me I think the real concern that the car is actually programmed explicitly to kill you if it has to, to ensure it's own safety or the safety of it's riders or something.

sweetbitter 5y ago
Humans do this as well. Many bus drivers may be told to not stop even if a car gets directly in their way, so as to avoid killing all of the children inside - especially so when at heights.
robbrown451 5y ago
I think a human is far more likely than a car to have a self-protection tendency. If a car is programmed that way, how does that benefit the car company (or the programmer)? It's just a different family that sues them if someone dies that didn't have to die. Are you thinking they could advertise it as "prioritizes your life more than random other people!" That's just begging for a lawsuit. And they especially wouldn't program the car to protect itself above a human life. Why would you think it would? The car is not nearly valuable enough to outweigh the cost of a lawsuit.
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  A human is less likely to mistake a garbage can for an oncoming car and then make the choice to run me over out of self preservation, though. Comparing a car programmed for self preservation versus a human seeking their self preservation only really makes sense if the car and human are both equally capable of assessing threats. At the moment I don't think cars are at the same level. Maybe I'm wrong. Humans are fallible too of course.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    You are mixing competence with agenda. Which is it? If you are concerned it is not as competent as a human, fine, that's defensible. But that's not what you said. You said you were concerned about its agenda, that it would be intentionally prioritize the lives of its passengers over other lives (and even suggested it would prioritize the preservation of the vehicle itself more highly) you said.... >I think the real concern that the car is actually programmed explicitly to kill you if it has to, to ensure it's own safety or the safety of it's riders or something. My comment was about that....the "agenda" issue, which is 100% what your comment was about. To be clear (if I wasn't in a previous message) There is NO incentive for it to be explicitly programmed to do that, since the company could be equally sued by pedestrians as it could by passengers. There IS incentive for a human to behave that way, since natural selection built a self protection motivation deeply into the human brain. There is also very strong incentive AGAINST prioritizing protection of the vehicle itself over any human -- passenger or not. For both human drivers and driving software programmers. Anyway, you seem to be changing your argument to one of competence, which to me is a completely different discussion. (I think self driving cars are better at some things and humans are better at other things, but eventually cars will be better -- or at least equal -- for the vast majority)

datavirtue 5y ago

I'm wondering why pedestrian accident prevention isn't standard equipment already. We have sensors all over, adaptive cruise...everything is in place except the junior-developer grade software routine to stop instead of hitting shit. Shows where the priorities are.

robbrown451 5y ago
Are you saying that they don't work hard to avoid having their cars hit pedestrians? Really? And no, this isn't "junior-developer grade software routine." They also don't want the car slamming on its brakes in the middle of traffic because a plastic bag blew by in front of the car.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Please, tell me about all the cars right now that avoid hitting pedestrians and bicycles and wheel chairs. If impact immenent (7th grade algebra) then stop.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    What's your point? You're saying you could apply 7th grade algebra to this problem and make these cars considerably safer, but that the people working on it now just don't bother? Because they're evil? Or what? I don't know what to say.
    - ruds 5y ago
      Coming in late, but I think you're misunderstanding the suggestion, which was to make pedestrian avoidance standard equipment on all new cars, not just autonomous vehicles.

shadowgovt 5y ago

The nice thing about self-driving cars is that when fatal errors are found, the software can be updated so the car will never make that mistake again. We can't do that with humans; instead, we have probabilities and known badly-designed roads that incentivize (or don't disincentivize) driving in a way likelier to cause death. The only way to fix those issues at scale is redesign the roads, often for less efficient traffic throughput.