3 ms·

> What other factors? You named one, injuries. Can you really not think of more? > humans generally can't see a small dog directly in front of the car Sure,

> What other factors? You named one, injuries. Can you really not think of more? > humans generally can't see a small dog directly in front of the car Sure, but they have extensive hardware and data for social cognition. So they could well see a person with a leash running after an out-of-sight dog and infer the dog. They could see a person waving at them to stop because a of a dog. They could hear the dog barking. They could have seen the dog 30 seconds ago and said, "Hey, where did that dog get to?" They could see the dogs in the park and slow down to keep a closer eye out. They could do all manner of things that are well beyond the reach of modern technology. And I'll note you conveniently skipped over the case where car companies just skipped over worrying about the dog at all because it allowed them to "increase shareholder value".

idopmstuff 3y ago
> You named one, injuries. Can you really not think of more? No, I can't - I said injuries and deaths. Those are the factors I think we should use to determine if these cars are legal. You said we should consider other factors, then when asked you cited one of my factors instead of other factors then asked me to give you examples of other things. If you think there are other factors to be taken into account, say what they are. > And I'll note you conveniently skipped over the case where car companies just skipped over worrying about the dog at all because it allowed them to "increase shareholder value". What are you talking about? The main thrust of complaints about self-driving cars is that they block traffic because they stop when they're not sure what to do. It's literally the opposite of the problem you're describing. You're just making things up and then saying complete nonsense like this. We should decide whether self-driving cars are legal based on whether or not they make the world safer. That's my stance. Yours seems to be unserious, incoherent nonsense.

idopmstuff 3y ago

> You named one, injuries. Can you really not think of more? No, I can't - I said injuries and deaths. Those are the factors I think we should use to determine if these cars are legal. You said we should consider other factors, then when asked you cited one of my factors instead of other factors then asked me to give you examples of other things. If you think there are other factors to be taken into account, say what they are. > And I'll note you conveniently skipped over the case where car companies just skipped over worrying about the dog at all because it allowed them to "increase shareholder value". What are you talking about? The main thrust of complaints about self-driving cars is that they block traffic because they stop when they're not sure what to do. It's literally the opposite of the problem you're describing. You're just making things up and then saying complete nonsense like this. We should decide whether self-driving cars are legal based on whether or not they make the world safer. That's my stance. Yours seems to be unserious, incoherent nonsense.