5 ms·

> I would feel much safer having a more advanced AI (not the current ones) driving cars. You shouldn't, there is no AI capable of doing better than a human, an

• xapata 4y ago
  I remember people saying no computer could ever beat the best humans at chess.
  • nmfisher 4y ago
    Would you be willing to play a computer at chess if there was a possibility on any given move that it would squash you like a pancake?
    • taeric 4y ago
      There was a kid with a broken finger recently... I mean, you aren't wrong. But we can almost certainly do better than where we currently are.
    • xapata 4y ago
      There's a possibility that all the particles in my body might leap simultaneously one foot to the left, or that I might transform into a bowl of petunias. The question is how likely playing chess or riding in a car might squash me like a pancake. We accept a not insignificant risk by driving ourselves and riding in cars driven by humans. Happily, it's not hard to estimate the risk that a machine-controlled car poses by letting them roam around. We can compare that with human-controlled cars and start shifting between controllers according to their risk profiles. I'd much rather have a machine-controlled car than a human asleep at the wheel.
  • semi-extrinsic 4y ago
    When do you remember this from? In the mid 1970's, computers playing chess had in 20 years gone from being utterly trivial to beat if you know the rules, to easily beating amateurs and playing mildly interesting games against top humans like Greenblatt vs Bobby Fischer in '77. And it was clear that the power of the chess computers would keep scaling with Moore's law as they could look further into the future and store more of a complete opening book. In the late 80's the first versions of Deep Blue were playing serious games against Kasparov under standard time control, even though it took until 1997 to beat him - one can argue that Kasparov was also still developing during this time, since his rating peaked in 1999. Can you find a citation from after 1980 from someone with a bit of understanding of chess and computers, saying that computers would never beat humans?
    • xapata 4y ago
      In the 70s, there was widespread misunderstanding of what artificial intelligence would be good at. Take a look at Hubert Dreyfus' _What Computers Can't Do_ (1972). To be fair, he was correct in some respects, but I think with flawed reasoning.
• paulgb 4y ago
  > You shouldn't, there is no AI capable of doing better than a human, and there does not appear to be any currently known method of creating one. I don’t care that much if it’s better than the best driver, I care if it’s better than the driver checking their phone, blowing through stop signs, etc. As a cyclist, I reckon that it’s the most selfish 10% of drivers that represent 90% of the risk; if they’re replaced by self-driving I’d feel safer even if it also means the good drivers aren’t quite as good.
  • bayindirh 4y ago
    The ones which are not checking their phones can't detect semis or cyclists for quite some time. So You're replacing the 10% with their electronic versions.
  • sandworm101 4y ago
    But if AI can be better than humans at driving a car, then it can also be better than you at driving a bicycle. Will you accept AI-augmented tools on your bike? I see automatic braking and speed limiters as very easy first steps. Then geofencing to prevent bicycles on pedestrian paths. All of that is dead simple with curret tech.
    • pasabagi 4y ago
      Bicyles aren't very dangerous. Cars, on the other hand, are a leading cause of death in basically every country on earth.
      • UncleEntity 4y ago
        Yeah, you only have a ~seven times higher rate of death per mile traveled as compared to a car. It’s just there are significantly more car miles traveled so more car related deaths. statistics…
        • pasabagi 4y ago
          ... 'death rate', as in, the cyclist is killed by a car.