4 ms·
This is a better argument for improving training and testing than it is in lowering the bar and letting a buggy computer program drive.
by rootusrootus 4y ago
This is a better argument for improving training and testing than it is in lowering the bar and letting a buggy computer program drive.
- jjoonathan 4y agoDo you really think there's more room to improve human nature than AI technology? I don't. I think they both have a ceiling and that the ceiling on AI is much higher.
- rootusrootus 4y agoYes? The largest causes of accidents are fairly well understood, if we decided it were worth the effort. Not coincidentally, this is why all the arguments for self-driving fall flat. Being as good as an average driver is a low bar. Being as good as a median driver is a harder task. But it's the latter that is the bar we have to pass if self-driving cars are ever to become mainstream.
- jjoonathan 4y agoDeaths = N*average, not N*median.
- rootusrootus 4y agoI was not trying to claim otherwise. But unless you are intending to make self-driving cars mandatory, N*average is meaningless. The median driver is who you actually need to convince, and they are not going to choose a self-driving car that is less safe than they are.
- simondotau 4y agoIt was only intended as an argument as a direct response to the post by tsimionescu. Tesla could focus on making FSD beta satisfy the driver test given to teenagers. It could perform the test as well as any 16-year-old and we'd all agree that it wouldn't really prove anything about the safety of FSD or the human teenager. Which is my point — the road is full of hideously bad/dangerously inexperienced human drivers holding driver licenses. Given this, it's hard for me to interpret the pearl-clutching around humans co-driving with FSD beta as anything other than confected paranoia.