5 ms·

>You may be correct, but it's going to take more than a superficial comparison to convince anyone. Well you just hand-waved the idea the self-driving cars can

>You may be correct, but it's going to take more than a superficial comparison to convince anyone. Well you just hand-waved the idea the self-driving cars can reduce harm by a "significant" margin - based on what exactly?

omginternets 5y ago
If that isn't true, then yes, we should seriously consider abandoning the idea of self-driving cars. I don't understand, though. Are you saying that this is a reason to accept Apple's CSAM-detection?
- passivate 5y ago
  Oh, I'm with you on the CSAM. I just wanted clarity about the self-driving cars, its a pet peeve of mine.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  > If that isn't true, then yes, we should seriously consider abandoning the idea of self-driving cars. I wanted to share a (I found) controversial thought: Self-driving cars are the US response to trains. No taxes for railways are palatable, but private vehicles on special roads and profit to be made, great for the car industry. That, IMO, is what drives (pun intended) self-driven cars.
mdoms 5y ago
1.35 million deaths per year caused by car accidents. That doesn't even account for the people who survive, but are maimed.
- passivate 5y ago
  Self-driving cars are unproven tech. Just pointing to the harm that humans contribute towards doesn't mean much. Soldiers also accidentally kill innocent civilians - are you in favor of AI-drones and AI-soldiers??
  - sebzim4500 5y ago
    Not the guy you are talking to, but I would 100% be in favour of AI-drones if it was shown they made fewer mistakes than human operators.
    - passivate 5y ago
      Sure, we all want fewer people harmed in this world. With regards to drones/solders - its a complicated topic, and needs a lot of discussion so I don't mean to be flippant about it as I might have come across. I was merely making a point that eliminating humans just to reduce the mistakes they cause ignores the benefits that humans bring - e.g. in this case - Refusing immoral orders, refusing to harm children or non-combatants, exercising judgement during war, etc.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      I’d be in favor of self-driving cars by the same criteria, but sadly a lot of people are ready to skip that step. Let’s be clear, there is ZERO empirical evidence that self-driving car technologies available to humanity today are safer than human drivers. Zero. There are lots of theoretical advantages like “computers don’t get sleepy or drunk,” which elide the many other ways that computers still dramatically underperform people (like recognizing objects).

omginternets 5y ago

If that isn't true, then yes, we should seriously consider abandoning the idea of self-driving cars. I don't understand, though. Are you saying that this is a reason to accept Apple's CSAM-detection?

passivate 5y ago
Oh, I'm with you on the CSAM. I just wanted clarity about the self-driving cars, its a pet peeve of mine.
mejutoco 5y ago
> If that isn't true, then yes, we should seriously consider abandoning the idea of self-driving cars. I wanted to share a (I found) controversial thought: Self-driving cars are the US response to trains. No taxes for railways are palatable, but private vehicles on special roads and profit to be made, great for the car industry. That, IMO, is what drives (pun intended) self-driven cars.

mdoms 5y ago

1.35 million deaths per year caused by car accidents. That doesn't even account for the people who survive, but are maimed.

passivate 5y ago
Self-driving cars are unproven tech. Just pointing to the harm that humans contribute towards doesn't mean much. Soldiers also accidentally kill innocent civilians - are you in favor of AI-drones and AI-soldiers??
- sebzim4500 5y ago
  Not the guy you are talking to, but I would 100% be in favour of AI-drones if it was shown they made fewer mistakes than human operators.
  - passivate 5y ago
    Sure, we all want fewer people harmed in this world. With regards to drones/solders - its a complicated topic, and needs a lot of discussion so I don't mean to be flippant about it as I might have come across. I was merely making a point that eliminating humans just to reduce the mistakes they cause ignores the benefits that humans bring - e.g. in this case - Refusing immoral orders, refusing to harm children or non-combatants, exercising judgement during war, etc.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    I’d be in favor of self-driving cars by the same criteria, but sadly a lot of people are ready to skip that step. Let’s be clear, there is ZERO empirical evidence that self-driving car technologies available to humanity today are safer than human drivers. Zero. There are lots of theoretical advantages like “computers don’t get sleepy or drunk,” which elide the many other ways that computers still dramatically underperform people (like recognizing objects).