2 ms·

I think the big issue with self driving cars isn't that anybody doubts that they are safer in standard situations. The issue is, that I can totally see a self

by atoav 3y ago

I think the big issue with self driving cars isn't that anybody doubts that they are safer in standard situations. The issue is, that I can totally see a self driving car fuck a rare obscure situation up in the worst way — where even the worst drivers would probably do okay. E.g. let's say you are in a tunnel and there is a fire, you car blocks the fire truck. The normal line of thinking would be to throw all existing rules of traffic out of the window and so totally illegal maneuvers that might even damage your or other peoples cars. A self driving car might be able to do that, but it cannot make the judgement needed to know when to throw all rules out of the window. Now in that example the driver (if they exist) could take over, but there are similar examples where there is less time to decide and/or a switch to manual might not be feasible. Think of all situations where multiple dangers have to be weighed against each other, for example a rock slide where a street is partly blocked (enough for the AI to stop) but there is still rock coming down the mountain. A situation where a criminal gang blocks the road, in order to make you stop and rob you — this being a thing that could become easy game when self driving is wide spread enough. The problem with self driving cars is that even if you statistically manage to be safer over the typical journey today, people still wanna know that it keeps them safe in very atypical conditions as well. And that as of now is not the case.

xoa 3y ago
>The issue is, that I can totally see a self driving car fuck a rare obscure situation up in the worst way — where even the worst drivers would probably do okay. So? Unlike with humans, self driving networks of cars can learn from a rare obscure situation, then the entire network can be updated to handle it going forward, forever. Whereas "the worst drivers" (drunk speeder road ragers say) will just cheerfully plow into students in front of their schools yet again. >The problem with self driving cars is that even if you statistically manage to be safer over the typical journey today, people still wanna know that it keeps them safe in very atypical conditions as well. Meh. This is just a typical argument from incredulity/unfamiliarity. People have zero issue accepting significant risk given solid benefits and most people's driving most of the time is short and boring. That'll be Good Enough to get the ball rolling, and it'll only ever improve. >And that as of now is not the case. Where is the suggestion in the article that the current cars are ready to handle absolutely everything everywhere today? It's about incremental gains and safety in one particular very high population location.
- atoav 3y ago
  You are missing my point here: Whether the lack of confidence outlined in my post is rational or not wasn't the point of my post at all. The lack of confidence (even if it is irrational) is something that needs to be overcome before the technology can receive wider adoption. This is not an argument that can be easily be wiped away by a class of people who wants to believe in new technology (and profits from its potential adoption). After all from the standpoint of most untechnological people the past decade has been a one where everything they knew got shittier and less reliable while claiming to be "smart". It got even to the degree where you need to create subscriptions for basic features of your damn car, to the benefit of exactly nobody other than the shareholders. In that climate taking the leap to trust a new technology is something you need to be willing to make. And many people aren't buying the promises. Again, whether they are right or wrong isn't the point here, but some technology is better suited for incremental safety improvements than others. E.g. nobody gives a damn about roombas falling down stairs, but if it is a damn car with their family in it they are more careful about their decision. There are also psychological aspects that play into this. Given the choice: A) travel inside a box that has a 10% chance to kill you and your family without you being able to influence the outcome at all B) travel inside a box that has a 15% chance to kill you and your family, but if it happens you are at fault and you can also prevent it from happening Most people would choose B just because the agency they have gives them a better feeling. Now granted, when we reduce the probability of A and/or increse the probability of B there will come a point where most people will flip. In the case of self driving cars this is not a out numbers, it is about perception. And the point of my post was that the perception isn't there yet.

by atoav 3y ago

xoa 3y ago

>The issue is, that I can totally see a self driving car fuck a rare obscure situation up in the worst way — where even the worst drivers would probably do okay. So? Unlike with humans, self driving networks of cars can learn from a rare obscure situation, then the entire network can be updated to handle it going forward, forever. Whereas "the worst drivers" (drunk speeder road ragers say) will just cheerfully plow into students in front of their schools yet again. >The problem with self driving cars is that even if you statistically manage to be safer over the typical journey today, people still wanna know that it keeps them safe in very atypical conditions as well. Meh. This is just a typical argument from incredulity/unfamiliarity. People have zero issue accepting significant risk given solid benefits and most people's driving most of the time is short and boring. That'll be Good Enough to get the ball rolling, and it'll only ever improve. >And that as of now is not the case. Where is the suggestion in the article that the current cars are ready to handle absolutely everything everywhere today? It's about incremental gains and safety in one particular very high population location.

atoav 3y ago
You are missing my point here: Whether the lack of confidence outlined in my post is rational or not wasn't the point of my post at all. The lack of confidence (even if it is irrational) is something that needs to be overcome before the technology can receive wider adoption. This is not an argument that can be easily be wiped away by a class of people who wants to believe in new technology (and profits from its potential adoption). After all from the standpoint of most untechnological people the past decade has been a one where everything they knew got shittier and less reliable while claiming to be "smart". It got even to the degree where you need to create subscriptions for basic features of your damn car, to the benefit of exactly nobody other than the shareholders. In that climate taking the leap to trust a new technology is something you need to be willing to make. And many people aren't buying the promises. Again, whether they are right or wrong isn't the point here, but some technology is better suited for incremental safety improvements than others. E.g. nobody gives a damn about roombas falling down stairs, but if it is a damn car with their family in it they are more careful about their decision. There are also psychological aspects that play into this. Given the choice: A) travel inside a box that has a 10% chance to kill you and your family without you being able to influence the outcome at all B) travel inside a box that has a 15% chance to kill you and your family, but if it happens you are at fault and you can also prevent it from happening Most people would choose B just because the agency they have gives them a better feeling. Now granted, when we reduce the probability of A and/or increse the probability of B there will come a point where most people will flip. In the case of self driving cars this is not a out numbers, it is about perception. And the point of my post was that the perception isn't there yet.