3 ms·
I disagree, but mainly because of the way humans perceive risk. From a public standpoint I don’t think it’s sufficient because there’s inherent trust lacking i
by bumby 4y ago
I disagree, but mainly because of the way humans perceive risk.
From a public standpoint I don’t think it’s sufficient because there’s inherent trust lacking in an automated system. With ape-driven systems we have a certain amount of trust because we can more accurately intuit what the other ape is reasonably thinking. This is not the case with autonomous driving which leads to a wider amount of uncertainty. Not unlike how we are intuitively less trusting of someone who is legitimately “crazy” even if statistically we don’ can’t say they are shown to be more dangerous.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoAI cars can also get a software update at any moment. Human drivers won't change behavior en masse overnight.
- bumby 4y agoYou’re right, but that still misses the point. More frequently updated software doesn’t make people intuitively trust it more. For some, it can do the opposite by making them question why it needs to be updated so much to begin with. Humans don’t generally measure risks statistically. They do so emotionally and with lots of cognitive biases. You don’t alleviate that with more and more facts, unfortunately.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoSorry if I was unclear. Software is more unpredictable in my view, both because of fleet updates and it being so fundamentally different than humans. (On the whole, I realize AI and ML could work similar to some human processes.)
- bumby 4y agoMy fault, your “also” should have tipped me off to what you meant.