4 ms·

If they are safe they should be 100% preserved and if they are dangerous they should be 100% removed. What is the logic of reducing them by 50%? Seems obvious t

If they are safe they should be 100% preserved and if they are dangerous they should be 100% removed. What is the logic of reducing them by 50%? Seems obvious there is none on a practical level but I also fail to see it on a political level.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
For one thing, safety is not a binary property. It's entirely possible these vehicles might be human-equivalent in broad metrics in some reasonable ODD that's not the ODD they're currently operating under. It might be that the vehicle software is fine, but the response processes are insufficient in some way. There's an infinite variety of possible issues (or nothing wrong at all) which the investigation will try to uncover. As for the logic behind half rather than all: 1. Revoking a permit is a drastic action that could cause cruise to leave the DMVs regulatory area entirely and go to another state like Arizona with essentially no oversight. 2. It could open them up to legal action that would consume lots of money for essentially no purpose 3. It gets the incident rate down so the situation is less political while the investigation is ongoing.
- moralestapia 3y ago
  @eduction argument still stands. A "low incident rate" shouldn't be tolerated.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    Using this logic, nobody should be allowed to learn to drive because inexperienced drivers have a higher incident rate. Of course, this is absurd. Instead, we slap on some caveats (time/passenger restrictions) and accept the risk with the knowledge the driver will improve with time. This is exactly the same for self driving vehicles. The only way to make them safer for public roads is to drive them on public roads. So if we slap on some caveats, such as a reduced fleet, we can make them safer while keeping incidents down.
    - moralestapia 3y ago
      You changed my pov and I agree with what you say. Although, I didn't mean that a zero incidence rate should be the rule, more like, if one knows a system is defective, also in such a dangerous context, it'd be negligent to still ship it under the pretense of a "low incidence rate".
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    If we had zero tolerance for risk, then cars and the roads they drive on wouldn't exist. Most things wouldn't!
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Who appointed you in charge of what other people should or shouldn't do?
crazygringo 3y ago
It was recently reported that a bunch of robotaxis occupying every lane all lost communication at once and therefore blocked all traffic. It's easy to imagine that a 50% reduction in fleet size could make this 90% less likely, while they work on ways to prevent that from happening again. It's not just about the behavior of any individual robotaxi, but it's also about their behavior collectively. It's also not just about safety, but about being a public nuisance -- if they break down or get confused too often. We can tolerate a small overall amount of that in a city, but not a large overall amount. It's not binary.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

For one thing, safety is not a binary property. It's entirely possible these vehicles might be human-equivalent in broad metrics in some reasonable ODD that's not the ODD they're currently operating under. It might be that the vehicle software is fine, but the response processes are insufficient in some way. There's an infinite variety of possible issues (or nothing wrong at all) which the investigation will try to uncover. As for the logic behind half rather than all: 1. Revoking a permit is a drastic action that could cause cruise to leave the DMVs regulatory area entirely and go to another state like Arizona with essentially no oversight. 2. It could open them up to legal action that would consume lots of money for essentially no purpose 3. It gets the incident rate down so the situation is less political while the investigation is ongoing.

moralestapia 3y ago
@eduction argument still stands. A "low incident rate" shouldn't be tolerated.
- shortcake27 3y ago
  Using this logic, nobody should be allowed to learn to drive because inexperienced drivers have a higher incident rate. Of course, this is absurd. Instead, we slap on some caveats (time/passenger restrictions) and accept the risk with the knowledge the driver will improve with time. This is exactly the same for self driving vehicles. The only way to make them safer for public roads is to drive them on public roads. So if we slap on some caveats, such as a reduced fleet, we can make them safer while keeping incidents down.
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    You changed my pov and I agree with what you say. Although, I didn't mean that a zero incidence rate should be the rule, more like, if one knows a system is defective, also in such a dangerous context, it'd be negligent to still ship it under the pretense of a "low incidence rate".
- Clamchop 3y ago
  If we had zero tolerance for risk, then cars and the roads they drive on wouldn't exist. Most things wouldn't!
- dventimi 3y ago
  Who appointed you in charge of what other people should or shouldn't do?

crazygringo 3y ago

It was recently reported that a bunch of robotaxis occupying every lane all lost communication at once and therefore blocked all traffic. It's easy to imagine that a 50% reduction in fleet size could make this 90% less likely, while they work on ways to prevent that from happening again. It's not just about the behavior of any individual robotaxi, but it's also about their behavior collectively. It's also not just about safety, but about being a public nuisance -- if they break down or get confused too often. We can tolerate a small overall amount of that in a city, but not a large overall amount. It's not binary.