7 ms·

Not really. Oharmaceuticals have many different tiers of trials, but even with that, there are still new discoveries and surprises once they reach the full popu

Not really. Oharmaceuticals have many different tiers of trials, but even with that, there are still new discoveries and surprises once they reach the full population. Waymo has been testing their tech for over a decade in much smaller and controlled situations. Similarly, all of these companies also have done tests with humans behind the wheel for years. To claim that they've done no testing and are going straight to public testing is just plainly false. You can argue about how much non-public testing is enough, but any roadmap for AV will eventually at some point have to include public testing.

ProfessorLayton 3y ago
Perhaps you know more than me about pharmaceutical testing, but people are aware that they're part of a trial, and more importantly, they consent to participating, correct? I did not claim they're not testing, they clearly are. My argument is that people that didn't sign up to be test subjects are getting hurt in the process. It's worth pointing out the discrepancy in human safety trials, is it not? Why should AV testing be less rigorous than pharmaceuticals?
- foota 3y ago
  The state ultimately is the one that is giving permission here on behalf of people, much the same way as the FDA decides when a medication is safe enough to be administered, or the FAA when a plane is ready, etc.,
- ehsankia 3y ago
  It depends what you define as a "test". It's like how for Covid vaccines, antivaxxers were claiming that vaccines were still being tested on people despite it getting past phase 1, 2 and 3. At what point do you consider something to be "safe enough". My point is that Waymo has done plenty of testing already. The question is, where do you draw the line? Are cars ever "done" being tested? Just like with drugs, you never know all the side effects for 100%, you can only make the error bar smaller and smaller, but eventually you have to distribute it to the public. Same with the car, at some point they will eventually have to drive on public road. By your logic, they would never reach that threshold since they're still "testing" it.

ProfessorLayton 3y ago

Perhaps you know more than me about pharmaceutical testing, but people are aware that they're part of a trial, and more importantly, they consent to participating, correct? I did not claim they're not testing, they clearly are. My argument is that people that didn't sign up to be test subjects are getting hurt in the process. It's worth pointing out the discrepancy in human safety trials, is it not? Why should AV testing be less rigorous than pharmaceuticals?

foota 3y ago
The state ultimately is the one that is giving permission here on behalf of people, much the same way as the FDA decides when a medication is safe enough to be administered, or the FAA when a plane is ready, etc.,
ehsankia 3y ago
It depends what you define as a "test". It's like how for Covid vaccines, antivaxxers were claiming that vaccines were still being tested on people despite it getting past phase 1, 2 and 3. At what point do you consider something to be "safe enough". My point is that Waymo has done plenty of testing already. The question is, where do you draw the line? Are cars ever "done" being tested? Just like with drugs, you never know all the side effects for 100%, you can only make the error bar smaller and smaller, but eventually you have to distribute it to the public. Same with the car, at some point they will eventually have to drive on public road. By your logic, they would never reach that threshold since they're still "testing" it.