4 ms·

>As long as fewer humans and dogs die from autonomous vehicles than by human-driven vehicles, they are a net good There is a logical chasm between pointing to

by vba616 3y ago

>As long as fewer humans and dogs die from autonomous vehicles than by human-driven vehicles, they are a net good There is a logical chasm between pointing to an accident prevented by superhuman reflexes/abilities, and the claim that there is a net improvement in driving ability. It seems beyond a reasonable doubt that autonomous vehicles can avoid some accidents that a human could not. But you can understand why that isn't proof of a net benefit, can't you? Think about how men complain about women supposedly being terrible drivers, and how studies show that women are more at risk in a crash, yet insurance rates for women are lower.

satvikpendem 3y ago
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, why is that not proof of a net benefit? If fewer humans die, that's a net benefit, by the definition of the word net. In your man/woman analogy, I'm not sure what studies you're referring to, but how men feel about women driving is not really a motivator for actuaries at insurance companies who have statistics on male versus female accidents.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > why is that not proof of a net benefit? Autonomous vehicles may be more prone to certain types of lethal accidents that humans aren't prone to. Autonomous vehicles may lead to more hours/miles driven, so even if deaths per mile driven are lower, the deaths per person may increase. Unknown physical or cognitive health effects of being a passenger versus being an active driver. Just off the top of my head. Fingers are crossed that autonomous vehicles won't lead to an increase in animal deaths. The roads are bad enough for them as is. I'm hopeful that convoying autonomous vehicles for long trips may be a benefit here.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Sure, I suppose we should take all of those factors into consideration when crafting our utility function.
- vba616 3y ago
  >how men feel about women driving is not really a motivator for actuaries at insurance companies who have statistics on male versus female accidents That's my point. That's my entire point. Well, that and that women are reportedly more vulnerable in accidents too, because of deficiencies in crash testing. It doesn't change the fact that insurance premiums are lower because losses are lower. When there are enough autonomous vehicles on the road for long enough to generate data for the actuaries, there is no guarantee that insurance rates will bear out the benefit of their purported abilities. Some asshat weaving through traffic in a BMW can claim to have better reflexes, better brakes, all sorts of things, compared to my grandma, but there is no logical reason why he can claim to be a safer driver if in the long run, his insurance rates are higher. Assuming those rates reflect average losses.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Why are we talking about insurance at all? I assume with autonomous vehicles, insurance rates will tend towards 0 over time. We are talking about net deaths, it doesn't matter what the insurance rates are as long as we count the number of deaths before and after autonomous vehicles, and if the latter is fewer than the former, then that's a net good. Again, if AVs are truly better, this will be reflected in their statistics and therefore whatever the actuaries see.
    - vba616 3y ago
      Why are prices useful at all? Insurance rates are an imperfect measurement that has the advantage of being less subject to arbitrary narratives of some individual or interest group. They're also a way of quantifying the severity of the accident in a way that it's hard to deduce from a data set such as the government collects. Experts may be able to figure out what the data means, but how can we know if the experts are correct without something independent?
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        I mean, sure, let's take insurance rates too. As I said, I assume due to autonomous vehicles that will trend towards 0, so what useful information does that tell you? That autonomous vehicles are safer, if that actually does happen. I don't understand the overall point you're making, are you saying AVs are not safer than humans? Because if so, I'm not sure why one would believe that.

by vba616 3y ago

satvikpendem 3y ago

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, why is that not proof of a net benefit? If fewer humans die, that's a net benefit, by the definition of the word net. In your man/woman analogy, I'm not sure what studies you're referring to, but how men feel about women driving is not really a motivator for actuaries at insurance companies who have statistics on male versus female accidents.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> why is that not proof of a net benefit? Autonomous vehicles may be more prone to certain types of lethal accidents that humans aren't prone to. Autonomous vehicles may lead to more hours/miles driven, so even if deaths per mile driven are lower, the deaths per person may increase. Unknown physical or cognitive health effects of being a passenger versus being an active driver. Just off the top of my head. Fingers are crossed that autonomous vehicles won't lead to an increase in animal deaths. The roads are bad enough for them as is. I'm hopeful that convoying autonomous vehicles for long trips may be a benefit here.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Sure, I suppose we should take all of those factors into consideration when crafting our utility function.
vba616 3y ago
>how men feel about women driving is not really a motivator for actuaries at insurance companies who have statistics on male versus female accidents That's my point. That's my entire point. Well, that and that women are reportedly more vulnerable in accidents too, because of deficiencies in crash testing. It doesn't change the fact that insurance premiums are lower because losses are lower. When there are enough autonomous vehicles on the road for long enough to generate data for the actuaries, there is no guarantee that insurance rates will bear out the benefit of their purported abilities. Some asshat weaving through traffic in a BMW can claim to have better reflexes, better brakes, all sorts of things, compared to my grandma, but there is no logical reason why he can claim to be a safer driver if in the long run, his insurance rates are higher. Assuming those rates reflect average losses.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Why are we talking about insurance at all? I assume with autonomous vehicles, insurance rates will tend towards 0 over time. We are talking about net deaths, it doesn't matter what the insurance rates are as long as we count the number of deaths before and after autonomous vehicles, and if the latter is fewer than the former, then that's a net good. Again, if AVs are truly better, this will be reflected in their statistics and therefore whatever the actuaries see.
  - vba616 3y ago
    Why are prices useful at all? Insurance rates are an imperfect measurement that has the advantage of being less subject to arbitrary narratives of some individual or interest group. They're also a way of quantifying the severity of the accident in a way that it's hard to deduce from a data set such as the government collects. Experts may be able to figure out what the data means, but how can we know if the experts are correct without something independent?
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      I mean, sure, let's take insurance rates too. As I said, I assume due to autonomous vehicles that will trend towards 0, so what useful information does that tell you? That autonomous vehicles are safer, if that actually does happen. I don't understand the overall point you're making, are you saying AVs are not safer than humans? Because if so, I'm not sure why one would believe that.