3 ms·

> Then we can actually determine where the problem is, and the scope of it. Unpopular opinion: there probably isn't a problem? None of these system is going t

by ajross 3y ago

> Then we can actually determine where the problem is, and the scope of it. Unpopular opinion: there probably isn't a problem? None of these system is going to be perfectly safe, but there's quite a bit of evidence at this point that they're all safer, as actually used (which, yes, includes some misuse) than a human driver is at doing the same task. No one wants to hear that though, so instead we take "where the problem is" as a prior and continue arguments like this ad nauseum. Full disclosure: my car is going to drive me to Idaho in the morning.

wilg 3y ago
Then this data will prove that, and eliminate the problem of people worrying about it.
- ajross 3y ago
  There's plenty of data already though (of which a very clear LACK of signal should be a pretty obvious one). People, likely you included, discount that stuff because it doesn't confirm their priors. And so they demand new data that they believe will. And if it doesn't? Goalposts are movable for a reason. At the end of the day you either believe or you don't. But if there was an actual problem, we'd know. There are millions of these things on the street now.
  - wilg 3y ago
    It's not a question of belief, it's a question of collecting the data. The data I mentioned is reasonable, easy to collect, and currently unavailable.
    - ajross 3y ago
      You're elsewhere in this subthread dismissing existing evidence (insurance rates) because it doesn't confirm your priors. I think we both know what would happen if this study magically appeared. "Demanding" data is a cheap evasion. The requirement for rational discourse is accepting the data you have.
      - wilg 3y ago
        lmao, nobody presented evidence based on insurance rates. I just suggested there are many other compounding factors that make insurance rates difficult to use for this purpose. It's also absolutely hilarious to me you're assuming I think Autopilot is unsafe.

by ajross 3y ago

wilg 3y ago

Then this data will prove that, and eliminate the problem of people worrying about it.

ajross 3y ago
There's plenty of data already though (of which a very clear LACK of signal should be a pretty obvious one). People, likely you included, discount that stuff because it doesn't confirm their priors. And so they demand new data that they believe will. And if it doesn't? Goalposts are movable for a reason. At the end of the day you either believe or you don't. But if there was an actual problem, we'd know. There are millions of these things on the street now.
- wilg 3y ago
  It's not a question of belief, it's a question of collecting the data. The data I mentioned is reasonable, easy to collect, and currently unavailable.
  - ajross 3y ago
    You're elsewhere in this subthread dismissing existing evidence (insurance rates) because it doesn't confirm your priors. I think we both know what would happen if this study magically appeared. "Demanding" data is a cheap evasion. The requirement for rational discourse is accepting the data you have.
    - wilg 3y ago
      lmao, nobody presented evidence based on insurance rates. I just suggested there are many other compounding factors that make insurance rates difficult to use for this purpose. It's also absolutely hilarious to me you're assuming I think Autopilot is unsafe.