3 ms·

I'd like to invite you to consider that with the (I would say) utilitarian view that one less death is an acceptable MVP, you are implicitly saying that you'd b

by cmsj 4y ago

I'd like to invite you to consider that with the (I would say) utilitarian view that one less death is an acceptable MVP, you are implicitly saying that you'd be ok with products being sold in the full knowledge that they would autonomously kill tens of thousands of people per year. While it may be true that perfect is the enemy of good, there is also such a thing as setting the bar too low.

joshstrange 4y ago
> you are implicitly saying that you'd be ok with products being sold in the full knowledge that they would autonomously kill tens of thousands of people per year. Which is the status quo for both cars and a bunch of other industries (pharma, tabaco, alcohol, fast food, the list goes on). Nothing is ever perfect (though many things don't have "death" as a potential failure case) but you are only looking at the downside and ignoring the lives that would be saved. I don't think many families think "Well our Bobby died in a car accident that would have been preventable by technology but even if he had access to it thousands of other people would still die even while using that tech so we are ok with him dying".
- aidenn0 4y ago
  > Which is the status quo for both cars and a bunch of other industries The key difference here is that alcohol and tobacco do not autonomously kill people. We can feel safe blaming deaths caused by them on the individuals who purchased and used those products. Same with automotive deaths. As soon as the blame goes from diffuse individuals to a single locus, the torts will come out in full-force. If a self-driving car kills 10% as many people per vehicle-mile as the average individual driver, then the company making it will get sued out of existence.
abracadabra_ 4y ago
Have you considered that by not allowing that product to be sold you are indirectly responsible for any extra deaths caused by human drivers?
- cmsj 4y ago
  I don't think the answer is to not allow autonomous cars to be sold, I think the answer is to engineer self-driving cars with the same kind of rigour that the aircraft industry uses, rather than the kind of rigour that startups use.
Arnt 4y ago
If you don't accept that cars may be sold that cause slightly fewer deaths than the Ford F-150, what's your argument for accepting that the Ford F-150 is sold? (Or, if you will, substitute any other concrete existing model of car for the one I named.)
- cmsj 4y ago
  We accept that human drivers are not perfect and are going to cause thousands of deaths per year with their vehicles. It's a whole different ballgame to accept that computers are going to choose to kill thousands of people per year, and it is not much comfort to know that it's slightly fewer thousands of people. I think this is especially true when the response to such deaths is not "we will investigate thoroughly and ensure this never happens again". This is not a logically consistent argument, but humans are not logically consistent beings.

by cmsj 4y ago

joshstrange 4y ago

> you are implicitly saying that you'd be ok with products being sold in the full knowledge that they would autonomously kill tens of thousands of people per year. Which is the status quo for both cars and a bunch of other industries (pharma, tabaco, alcohol, fast food, the list goes on). Nothing is ever perfect (though many things don't have "death" as a potential failure case) but you are only looking at the downside and ignoring the lives that would be saved. I don't think many families think "Well our Bobby died in a car accident that would have been preventable by technology but even if he had access to it thousands of other people would still die even while using that tech so we are ok with him dying".

aidenn0 4y ago
> Which is the status quo for both cars and a bunch of other industries The key difference here is that alcohol and tobacco do not autonomously kill people. We can feel safe blaming deaths caused by them on the individuals who purchased and used those products. Same with automotive deaths. As soon as the blame goes from diffuse individuals to a single locus, the torts will come out in full-force. If a self-driving car kills 10% as many people per vehicle-mile as the average individual driver, then the company making it will get sued out of existence.

abracadabra_ 4y ago

Have you considered that by not allowing that product to be sold you are indirectly responsible for any extra deaths caused by human drivers?

cmsj 4y ago
I don't think the answer is to not allow autonomous cars to be sold, I think the answer is to engineer self-driving cars with the same kind of rigour that the aircraft industry uses, rather than the kind of rigour that startups use.

Arnt 4y ago

If you don't accept that cars may be sold that cause slightly fewer deaths than the Ford F-150, what's your argument for accepting that the Ford F-150 is sold? (Or, if you will, substitute any other concrete existing model of car for the one I named.)

cmsj 4y ago
We accept that human drivers are not perfect and are going to cause thousands of deaths per year with their vehicles. It's a whole different ballgame to accept that computers are going to choose to kill thousands of people per year, and it is not much comfort to know that it's slightly fewer thousands of people. I think this is especially true when the response to such deaths is not "we will investigate thoroughly and ensure this never happens again". This is not a logically consistent argument, but humans are not logically consistent beings.