3 ms·

The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it wouldn'

by smsm42 3y ago

The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it wouldn't save them from headlines of "robot car kills an innocent person". And given how chaotic and unpredictable situation on the roads in a densely populated city without designated spaces for cyclists can be, 100% safety is impossible. Even if AI itself if perfect, there's physics of mass, inertia, velocity, visibility, etc. - which sometimes will cause situations that lead to collisions, unless the self-driving cars either are physically segregated or limited to ridiculously low speeds where they become useless. Solution 1: make separate bike paths. Totally works in many cities, likely can't happen in SF because of so many reasons. Solution 2: ban self-driving cars. Solution 3: pay megabucks to PR company which would create some kind of a narrative where safety is much less important than the benefits of the self-driving cars, and if you say otherwise, you are a bad person and should be cancelled. Not sure if it's possible but it probably less impossible than making a 100% safe self-driving car. A sane solution would be to figure out how much safety we expect, take effort to make it as close to 100% as possible while realizing it's never 100%, and rationally investigate each case of failure, while recognizing that some amount of them are inevitable. But that would be totally outdated and unusual pattern of behavior, so I don't expect it to happen in practice.

Terr_ 3y ago
> The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. I feel like that might be built atop two deeper concerns: 1. People worry that ways and times they are unsafe (separate from overall rates) will be unusual, less-predictable, or involve a novel risk-profile. 2. If it's autonomous, then accidents kinda weird-out our sense of blame and justice. When it fails, is it always the owner's fault and liability--even though the workings are impenetrable to the average person--or does the manufacturer have some blame? Do we each imagine that outcome would be fair if we were the one on the hook for our car doing something weird we didn't even intend? Using regular cars as contrast, #1 is something predictable--or at least we delude ourselves into thinking it's predictable--and #2 has less disturbing ambiguity.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
> The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it wouldn't save them from headlines of "robot car kills an innocent person". Well, yes, because all the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. Those 10 times safer than humans have no actual meaning in practice, because if they can brake 100ms faster than a human would, in practice it makes no difference. What would make a difference would be to be fully aware of anything that might happen, have solutions for every possibility and react accordingly in I don't know, say 20-30 milliseconds. So when a self-driving car hits and kills a pedestrian it is a failure on the self-driving system (assuming the pedestrian just doesn't jump in front of the car out of nowhere). Self-driving cars don't have three things that humans have: instinct, experience and contextual awareness. No matter how many miles they drive, they can't learn as humans do.
- spongebobstoes 3y ago
  It would be more reasonable to compare a self driving car to the median or average human driver, rather than a highly skilled one. That's what we're dealing with today: humans (distracted, elderly, tired, bored) who routinely kill and maim each other with cars. As long as self driving cars will reduce the number of deaths per mile driven (and I think the data shows that), I think they should be allowed on the roads.
- Denvercoder9 3y ago
  > Those 10 times safer than humans have no actual meaning in practice I'd say that accidents or injuries per mile driven has quite a lot actual meaning. I don't know if they are at 10x compared to human drivers on those stats yet, but when they are, I'd say it's a reasonable take to say that they're 10x safer.
- smsm42 3y ago
  > the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. It sounds like you conflating two claims: safety(computer car) == 100% and safety(computer car) > safety(human driver). Refuting the former (which is easy) does not refute the latter, though the converse would be true of course. But is it true that human driver is safer or the same? > because if they can brake 100ms faster than a human would, in practice it makes no difference That claim would be stronger with some better substantiation. I think it makes sense that faster reaction time and better focus leads to better safety record. That's why we prosecute people for DUI - because we have reasons to believe that slower reaction and more distracted driving when under influence leads to worse safety. Consequently, faster reaction and less distracted driving would lead to a better one. It will still be imperfect, but likely less imperfect than human driver, with lesser failure rate. > What would make a difference would be to be fully aware of anything that might happen, You make impossible demand - no mechanism or system could be ready for "anything that might happen", and nobody - at least nobody not having super-natural clairvoyance - could be aware of absolutely everything everywhere. There will always be weird coincidences and hidden things, the question is how fast the system can adapt and find a safe(r) solution. > Self-driving cars don't have three things that humans have: instinct, experience and contextual awareness They certainly have a system analogous to "instinct", and they can learn (even if not in the same way as humans, but who says it's the only way?). It is true that they don't really understand the context, but I wonder how important that is compared to the speed of reaction, lack of distractions and ability to control the vehicle? I would estimate most of the accidents happen because the driver either didn't notice something, or didn't react in time, or reacted not in the way that is optimal (like slamming the brakes on an icy road, or swerving too hard and losing control). A computerized driver would be much better on those dimensions. It would be worse on deciphering complex and unusual scenarios, but I don't think most of the accidents are of that nature.

by smsm42 3y ago

Terr_ 3y ago

> The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. I feel like that might be built atop two deeper concerns: 1. People worry that ways and times they are unsafe (separate from overall rates) will be unusual, less-predictable, or involve a novel risk-profile. 2. If it's autonomous, then accidents kinda weird-out our sense of blame and justice. When it fails, is it always the owner's fault and liability--even though the workings are impenetrable to the average person--or does the manufacturer have some blame? Do we each imagine that outcome would be fair if we were the one on the hook for our car doing something weird we didn't even intend? Using regular cars as contrast, #1 is something predictable--or at least we delude ourselves into thinking it's predictable--and #2 has less disturbing ambiguity.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

> The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it wouldn't save them from headlines of "robot car kills an innocent person". Well, yes, because all the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. Those 10 times safer than humans have no actual meaning in practice, because if they can brake 100ms faster than a human would, in practice it makes no difference. What would make a difference would be to be fully aware of anything that might happen, have solutions for every possibility and react accordingly in I don't know, say 20-30 milliseconds. So when a self-driving car hits and kills a pedestrian it is a failure on the self-driving system (assuming the pedestrian just doesn't jump in front of the car out of nowhere). Self-driving cars don't have three things that humans have: instinct, experience and contextual awareness. No matter how many miles they drive, they can't learn as humans do.

spongebobstoes 3y ago
It would be more reasonable to compare a self driving car to the median or average human driver, rather than a highly skilled one. That's what we're dealing with today: humans (distracted, elderly, tired, bored) who routinely kill and maim each other with cars. As long as self driving cars will reduce the number of deaths per mile driven (and I think the data shows that), I think they should be allowed on the roads.
Denvercoder9 3y ago
> Those 10 times safer than humans have no actual meaning in practice I'd say that accidents or injuries per mile driven has quite a lot actual meaning. I don't know if they are at 10x compared to human drivers on those stats yet, but when they are, I'd say it's a reasonable take to say that they're 10x safer.
smsm42 3y ago
> the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. It sounds like you conflating two claims: safety(computer car) == 100% and safety(computer car) > safety(human driver). Refuting the former (which is easy) does not refute the latter, though the converse would be true of course. But is it true that human driver is safer or the same? > because if they can brake 100ms faster than a human would, in practice it makes no difference That claim would be stronger with some better substantiation. I think it makes sense that faster reaction time and better focus leads to better safety record. That's why we prosecute people for DUI - because we have reasons to believe that slower reaction and more distracted driving when under influence leads to worse safety. Consequently, faster reaction and less distracted driving would lead to a better one. It will still be imperfect, but likely less imperfect than human driver, with lesser failure rate. > What would make a difference would be to be fully aware of anything that might happen, You make impossible demand - no mechanism or system could be ready for "anything that might happen", and nobody - at least nobody not having super-natural clairvoyance - could be aware of absolutely everything everywhere. There will always be weird coincidences and hidden things, the question is how fast the system can adapt and find a safe(r) solution. > Self-driving cars don't have three things that humans have: instinct, experience and contextual awareness They certainly have a system analogous to "instinct", and they can learn (even if not in the same way as humans, but who says it's the only way?). It is true that they don't really understand the context, but I wonder how important that is compared to the speed of reaction, lack of distractions and ability to control the vehicle? I would estimate most of the accidents happen because the driver either didn't notice something, or didn't react in time, or reacted not in the way that is optimal (like slamming the brakes on an icy road, or swerving too hard and losing control). A computerized driver would be much better on those dimensions. It would be worse on deciphering complex and unusual scenarios, but I don't think most of the accidents are of that nature.