3 ms·

I'll be honest, I prefer to die in an accident "of today" where for example someone crashes into me which maybe an AI could stop, than to die in an accident whe

by vasco 4y ago

I'll be honest, I prefer to die in an accident "of today" where for example someone crashes into me which maybe an AI could stop, than to die in an accident where if I had the AI disabled I would never crash as a human driver. Basically I prefer to be exposed to risks that a human "can't" avoid than from something like this which a human wouldn't do: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/tesla-firetruck-car-crash-17792928.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/tesla-firetruck-car-c...

bko 4y ago
Do you feel the same way about auto break technology?
- thesuitonym 4y ago
  What a bogus argument. Auto braking doesn't replace the human.
  - bko 4y ago
    When it engages it does necessarily replace or override the human as if the human broke it wouldn't engage. Of course it's not intended to be relied on exclusively but self driving cars as of today similarly require you to pay attention and override when necessary
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Yes, auto-brake technology is catastrophically bad in its current half-implemented state. I assure you that false collision alarms are causing accidents that aren't being accounted for, some of them serious. Just as with first-generation airbags that did more harm than good to children and properly-belted passengers, it'll take a while for the actuaries and statisticians to catch up with how modern cars are actually behaving on the road. At that point a cynic might predict (or even hope for) the trial lawyers to take it from there. Last to catch on will be the legislators who have mandated auto-braking tech without imposing strict performance and reliabilty standards.
pigsty 4y ago
Personally, I’d simply prefer not to die. If something can reduce the risk of that happening by 90%, that sounds great. People were worried about dying from electricity—a power source out of their control—to turn on their lights, and it certainly did and still does kill people, but more people died by starting fires in their homes to read at night or stay warm. But the number of people wanting to replace their lightbulbs with candles for a little extra control of their energy source is quite low (although they do exist).

by vasco 4y ago

bko 4y ago

Do you feel the same way about auto break technology?

thesuitonym 4y ago
What a bogus argument. Auto braking doesn't replace the human.
- bko 4y ago
  When it engages it does necessarily replace or override the human as if the human broke it wouldn't engage. Of course it's not intended to be relied on exclusively but self driving cars as of today similarly require you to pay attention and override when necessary
CamperBob2 4y ago
Yes, auto-brake technology is catastrophically bad in its current half-implemented state. I assure you that false collision alarms are causing accidents that aren't being accounted for, some of them serious. Just as with first-generation airbags that did more harm than good to children and properly-belted passengers, it'll take a while for the actuaries and statisticians to catch up with how modern cars are actually behaving on the road. At that point a cynic might predict (or even hope for) the trial lawyers to take it from there. Last to catch on will be the legislators who have mandated auto-braking tech without imposing strict performance and reliabilty standards.

pigsty 4y ago

Personally, I’d simply prefer not to die. If something can reduce the risk of that happening by 90%, that sounds great. People were worried about dying from electricity—a power source out of their control—to turn on their lights, and it certainly did and still does kill people, but more people died by starting fires in their homes to read at night or stay warm. But the number of people wanting to replace their lightbulbs with candles for a little extra control of their energy source is quite low (although they do exist).