4 ms·

This seems to warrant repeating every time this is brought up: It just needs to be 1% better than human drivers. If the net result is 1% less tragedies - sign

by ben174 4y ago

This seems to warrant repeating every time this is brought up: It just needs to be 1% better than human drivers. If the net result is 1% less tragedies - sign me up. If it's better than the alternative, I'm in.

mtoner23 4y ago
if you want 1% fewer driving tragedies, we should all just drive less
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  That has downsides. Autonomous driving needs to be 1% net better. Less driving has up sides, but also downsides, and it’s not clear how to do a net comparison there. But yeah, if it is net positive, we should do that too.
Spoom 4y ago
That's the engineering argument. The societal expectation, however, is that it's 100% better than human drivers, as in, it must not cause harm, ever. The reality is that the vast majority of folks won't accept autonomous vehicles if they don't meet this high bar. Opinions my own.
yupper32 4y ago
Most people (including me) think they're better drivers than average. I think I'm probably in the top 10%, at least. Whether or not that's actually true doesn't matter for my argument. All that considered, I need autonomous vehicles to be MUCH better than average human drivers to consider riding in them. They need to be better than I think I am, so maybe top 5% or so of talent on the road. 1% better than the average human is still an awful driver IMO.
axg11 4y ago
This is an unrealistic take. There are many other differences that you need to consider. For example, what is the nature of that 1% difference in tragedies? Perhaps there's a 1% improvement in overall fatalities but also an increase in very gruesome accidents. Technologies that are rapidly adopted often need to be 10x better than existing solutions, otherwise adoption is a slower uphill battle.
kergonath 4y ago
Better regulations and fewer huge SUVs or trucks with massive blind spots would result in more than a 1% drop. Better public transport would, as well. Sure, it’s not shiny new technologies…
simion314 4y ago
>It just needs to be 1% better than human drivers. If the net result is 1% less tragedies - sign me up. Say you have a child and want to send him to school, would you chose 1 drive him yourself, knowing you have 10 years of experience with zero accidents and you are responsible and care for your child 2 use a lottery that will give you a random driver, could be a 16 years old teen with 1 day experience, could be a 80 years old elder or a drunk or tired dude or a super driver 3 use an AI , is better then the drunk dude , 1% better then the teen but worse then you and much worse then a professional driver I am curious why would chose 2 or 3 if 1 is an option. 3
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist.
  - simion314 4y ago
    >Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist. - Not everyone has access to school bus options - not everyone can drive - not everyone owns a self driving car .... I would prefer if we stay on topic and answer at in Hypothetical question. Or if you have a bias, let use a different domain Your child is ill and you call for a doctor, but in this universe doctors are a lot of time drunk or are allowed to practice with zero experience, whyat do you chose 1 you call your family doctor that you trust and is not a drunk 2 you call the AI doctor that is terrible compared to a normal doctor but is better then the drunk doctors 3 you realize that it would be so much cheaper then creating an army of AI robot doctors to just fix the problem with drunk doctors, and maybe the fact you are an AI enthusiast won't prevent you think that comparing an AI with a drunk doctor is stupid, that we should have better stats then is better then the worse.
    - colejohnson66 4y ago
      Chill out. I never said I was an AI enthusiast. Maybe don’t assume things because someone made a small critique about your comment? I was simply responding to your question of why people choose 2 or 3 when 1 is an option. Because it’s not always an option. You even admit that at the top of your comment. Which leads me to ask: what are you trying to prove here?

by ben174 4y ago

mtoner23 4y ago

if you want 1% fewer driving tragedies, we should all just drive less

LadyCailin 4y ago
That has downsides. Autonomous driving needs to be 1% net better. Less driving has up sides, but also downsides, and it’s not clear how to do a net comparison there. But yeah, if it is net positive, we should do that too.

Spoom 4y ago

That's the engineering argument. The societal expectation, however, is that it's 100% better than human drivers, as in, it must not cause harm, ever. The reality is that the vast majority of folks won't accept autonomous vehicles if they don't meet this high bar. Opinions my own.

yupper32 4y ago

Most people (including me) think they're better drivers than average. I think I'm probably in the top 10%, at least. Whether or not that's actually true doesn't matter for my argument. All that considered, I need autonomous vehicles to be MUCH better than average human drivers to consider riding in them. They need to be better than I think I am, so maybe top 5% or so of talent on the road. 1% better than the average human is still an awful driver IMO.

axg11 4y ago

This is an unrealistic take. There are many other differences that you need to consider. For example, what is the nature of that 1% difference in tragedies? Perhaps there's a 1% improvement in overall fatalities but also an increase in very gruesome accidents. Technologies that are rapidly adopted often need to be 10x better than existing solutions, otherwise adoption is a slower uphill battle.

kergonath 4y ago

Better regulations and fewer huge SUVs or trucks with massive blind spots would result in more than a 1% drop. Better public transport would, as well. Sure, it’s not shiny new technologies…

simion314 4y ago

>It just needs to be 1% better than human drivers. If the net result is 1% less tragedies - sign me up. Say you have a child and want to send him to school, would you chose 1 drive him yourself, knowing you have 10 years of experience with zero accidents and you are responsible and care for your child 2 use a lottery that will give you a random driver, could be a 16 years old teen with 1 day experience, could be a 80 years old elder or a drunk or tired dude or a super driver 3 use an AI , is better then the drunk dude , 1% better then the teen but worse then you and much worse then a professional driver I am curious why would chose 2 or 3 if 1 is an option. 3

colejohnson66 4y ago
Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist.
- simion314 4y ago
  >Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist. - Not everyone has access to school bus options - not everyone can drive - not everyone owns a self driving car .... I would prefer if we stay on topic and answer at in Hypothetical question. Or if you have a bias, let use a different domain Your child is ill and you call for a doctor, but in this universe doctors are a lot of time drunk or are allowed to practice with zero experience, whyat do you chose 1 you call your family doctor that you trust and is not a drunk 2 you call the AI doctor that is terrible compared to a normal doctor but is better then the drunk doctors 3 you realize that it would be so much cheaper then creating an army of AI robot doctors to just fix the problem with drunk doctors, and maybe the fact you are an AI enthusiast won't prevent you think that comparing an AI with a drunk doctor is stupid, that we should have better stats then is better then the worse.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    Chill out. I never said I was an AI enthusiast. Maybe don’t assume things because someone made a small critique about your comment? I was simply responding to your question of why people choose 2 or 3 when 1 is an option. Because it’s not always an option. You even admit that at the top of your comment. Which leads me to ask: what are you trying to prove here?