3 ms·

Absurd: Are we going to call for a 50% reduction in human operators next time there is a crash caused by something with a pulse? We can't have progress if we d

Absurd: Are we going to call for a 50% reduction in human operators next time there is a crash caused by something with a pulse? We can't have progress if we don't get over this inane sentimentality(?) over how accidents, deaths, and dismemberments are just 'how things are' so long as they are caused by people and 'Safety of the traveling public is the California DMV’s top priority[0]' when a robot does it. [0]Editorial comment: it sure as shit isn't the rest of the time.

jeffbee 3y ago
After a human killed a four-year-old child in central San Francisco earlier this week (did not hit the front page of HN despite being as relevant to AVs as this story) unfortunately nobody called for an immediate reconsideration of the whole car thing.
jancsika 3y ago
> We can't have progress if we don't get over this inane sentimentality(?) over how accidents, deaths, and dismemberments are just 'how things are' so long as they are caused by people and 'Safety of the traveling public is the California DMV’s top priority[0]' when a robot does it. That sure does sound like the way to have progress. Blockchain and self-driving seem to be the only digital domains where adherents argue for lowering our standards for the technology being offered-- typically in pursuit of some unspecified improvement at an unspecified future date. It's actually difficult to come up with an analogy in any other domain. Perhaps if VR hardware had some inane limitation that required users to always walk the entire physically analogous distance to move around in the virtual world. And when a user complains about not being able to teleport to different areas, VR adherents push back that the VR world is no worse than the physical world in this sense.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > lowering our standards Lowering from what baseline? I almost always see people advocate for similar accident rates as humans or better. That's not lowering. > It's actually difficult to come up with an analogy in any other domain. Perhaps if VR hardware had some inane limitation that required users to always walk the entire physically analogous distance to move around in the virtual world. And when a user complains about not being able to teleport to different areas, VR adherents push back that the VR world is no worse than the physical world in this sense. In this analogy, is walking the only option in the physical world too? Or can VR have vehicles too? If yes to either of those, I don't see what's so ridiculous about this scenario. Am I the dumb one? For the analogy to fit, there must have been enormous amounts of money spent on trying to invent VR teleportation, but it hadn't happened yet. And in that case... yes the complaint is valid, but it doesn't make VR a failure. You wouldn't be lowering your standards because of the lack of teleportation.

jeffbee 3y ago

After a human killed a four-year-old child in central San Francisco earlier this week (did not hit the front page of HN despite being as relevant to AVs as this story) unfortunately nobody called for an immediate reconsideration of the whole car thing.

jancsika 3y ago

> We can't have progress if we don't get over this inane sentimentality(?) over how accidents, deaths, and dismemberments are just 'how things are' so long as they are caused by people and 'Safety of the traveling public is the California DMV’s top priority[0]' when a robot does it. That sure does sound like the way to have progress. Blockchain and self-driving seem to be the only digital domains where adherents argue for lowering our standards for the technology being offered-- typically in pursuit of some unspecified improvement at an unspecified future date. It's actually difficult to come up with an analogy in any other domain. Perhaps if VR hardware had some inane limitation that required users to always walk the entire physically analogous distance to move around in the virtual world. And when a user complains about not being able to teleport to different areas, VR adherents push back that the VR world is no worse than the physical world in this sense.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> lowering our standards Lowering from what baseline? I almost always see people advocate for similar accident rates as humans or better. That's not lowering. > It's actually difficult to come up with an analogy in any other domain. Perhaps if VR hardware had some inane limitation that required users to always walk the entire physically analogous distance to move around in the virtual world. And when a user complains about not being able to teleport to different areas, VR adherents push back that the VR world is no worse than the physical world in this sense. In this analogy, is walking the only option in the physical world too? Or can VR have vehicles too? If yes to either of those, I don't see what's so ridiculous about this scenario. Am I the dumb one? For the analogy to fit, there must have been enormous amounts of money spent on trying to invent VR teleportation, but it hadn't happened yet. And in that case... yes the complaint is valid, but it doesn't make VR a failure. You wouldn't be lowering your standards because of the lack of teleportation.