3 ms·

This is ignorant. There is lots of information about the safety of human driven cars, it is not a high bar to improve upon, and can be verified. The technology

This is ignorant. There is lots of information about the safety of human driven cars, it is not a high bar to improve upon, and can be verified. The technology in question is introducing a new form of potentially ruinous statistical surveillance that didn't exist before.

kaba0 5y ago
Do you mean the terribly done statistics that collect data from uneventful motorways’ miles, while people automatically switch back to manual driving when a problematic situation arises, effectively filtering out any interesting data?
KarlKemp 5y ago
You’re ignoring the Trolley Problem of it all: is it moral to knowingly let uninvolved person X die if it saves the lives of Y and Z? Fortunately, the policy choice at issue here isn’t one where there is definitive harm on the track, just risks that can be compared.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  IMO It is more: is it immoral to let person X die justifying it with an unreasonable fetish for tech and its unrealized potential? I am only half kidding :)
passivate 5y ago
>There is lots of information about the safety of human driven cars, it is not a high bar to improve upon, and can be verified. That doesn't make sense. The 'average' driver gets into millions of accidents. I don't want a slight above average driver driving my family around, and I don't want slightly above average drivers around me - especially those who I can't communicate with - by honking, by shouting to get their attention, and algorithms who have no fear of their own life, etc. All software has bugs and I don't want my safety contingent on developers making mistakes. The self driving car must be orders of magnitude above the BEST human driver, and there must be punitive damages in place as a deterrent, to compensate aggrieved parties, etc. At present, self-driving cars are unproven dangerous technology that is being rightfully scrutinized.
- sebzim4500 5y ago
  Currently you are surrounded by average drivers. Why are you worried about them being replaced with slightly above average drivers?
  - passivate 5y ago
    No, I am not. I haven't gotten into an accident, nor have I witnessed one that resulted in a fatality or any major injury. The distribution of skills amongst drivers isn't geographically even , nor is it static.
    - Schiendelman 5y ago
      What makes you think it’s not geographically even (at least in a country like the US)?
      - passivate 5y ago
        Because I haven't seen it proven in any domain, it sounds too naive to believe that people have equal abilities and skills by geography (or any other random metric). Population centers will have greater access to training, also in this example more cars on the road will co-relate to more opportunity to practice driving skills, but also more opportunity for accidents, etc, etc. In any case, if you look at outcomes in terms of car crashes/fatalities, the data also shows what you would expect - https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fatal-car-accidents-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fatal-car-a...
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  What measure are you using for "slightly above average" that also equals "unproven dangerous"? If the above average technology is dangerous, surely the average driver is even more dangerous. Otherwise it's not really above average, no? I.e., how can you make fewer errors and be a measurably better driver but still be worse than the thing that you're measurably better than? Either you're making this argument in bad faith because you just don't like self driving cars, or you don't believe in statistics as a concept.

kaba0 5y ago

Do you mean the terribly done statistics that collect data from uneventful motorways’ miles, while people automatically switch back to manual driving when a problematic situation arises, effectively filtering out any interesting data?

KarlKemp 5y ago

You’re ignoring the Trolley Problem of it all: is it moral to knowingly let uninvolved person X die if it saves the lives of Y and Z? Fortunately, the policy choice at issue here isn’t one where there is definitive harm on the track, just risks that can be compared.

mejutoco 5y ago
IMO It is more: is it immoral to let person X die justifying it with an unreasonable fetish for tech and its unrealized potential? I am only half kidding :)

passivate 5y ago

>There is lots of information about the safety of human driven cars, it is not a high bar to improve upon, and can be verified. That doesn't make sense. The 'average' driver gets into millions of accidents. I don't want a slight above average driver driving my family around, and I don't want slightly above average drivers around me - especially those who I can't communicate with - by honking, by shouting to get their attention, and algorithms who have no fear of their own life, etc. All software has bugs and I don't want my safety contingent on developers making mistakes. The self driving car must be orders of magnitude above the BEST human driver, and there must be punitive damages in place as a deterrent, to compensate aggrieved parties, etc. At present, self-driving cars are unproven dangerous technology that is being rightfully scrutinized.

sebzim4500 5y ago
Currently you are surrounded by average drivers. Why are you worried about them being replaced with slightly above average drivers?
- passivate 5y ago
  No, I am not. I haven't gotten into an accident, nor have I witnessed one that resulted in a fatality or any major injury. The distribution of skills amongst drivers isn't geographically even , nor is it static.
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    What makes you think it’s not geographically even (at least in a country like the US)?
    - passivate 5y ago
      Because I haven't seen it proven in any domain, it sounds too naive to believe that people have equal abilities and skills by geography (or any other random metric). Population centers will have greater access to training, also in this example more cars on the road will co-relate to more opportunity to practice driving skills, but also more opportunity for accidents, etc, etc. In any case, if you look at outcomes in terms of car crashes/fatalities, the data also shows what you would expect - https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fatal-car-accidents-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fatal-car-a...
bastawhiz 5y ago
What measure are you using for "slightly above average" that also equals "unproven dangerous"? If the above average technology is dangerous, surely the average driver is even more dangerous. Otherwise it's not really above average, no? I.e., how can you make fewer errors and be a measurably better driver but still be worse than the thing that you're measurably better than? Either you're making this argument in bad faith because you just don't like self driving cars, or you don't believe in statistics as a concept.