2 ms·
> I think it's clear that if we were talking about saving 125 people 90 years old or older or 100 children, the clear choice is to save the children, from almos
by grecy 3y ago
> I think it's clear that if we were talking about saving 125 people 90 years old or older or 100 children, the clear choice is to save the children, from almost any rational point of view. Even just from a societal health or utility standpoint, children are worth more than people that are statistically close to death anyway at a societal level.
That assumes that the people currently being killed on the roads are "less valuable" than the people that would be killed on the roads by autonomous systems.
There is no evidence to prove that, it's purely hypothetical.
- kbenson 3y agoYes, there is no evidence. The point I was trying to make is that gathering that evidence and knowing what is happening is important. It's not enough to just assume any drop in deaths is automatically better than previously, when what we're talking about is a drastic change in how the overall system operates. Im not arguing that autonomous cars will be worse, I'm just arguing there is the possibility for them to be worse in non-obvious ways, and you prior arguments seemed to ignore that. We should not be so blinded by a single metric that we fail to understand what's really going on. To are many cases of that in technological advances, legislative change, and societal shifts, that we aren't aware of until long after the additional damage has been done.