5 ms·

You're making a classic is-ought fallacy here. Drunk, high, sleep deprived or "crazy wild aggressive reckless" human drivers ought not to exist, but they do, an

You're making a classic is-ought fallacy here. Drunk, high, sleep deprived or "crazy wild aggressive reckless" human drivers ought not to exist, but they do, and thus it's absolutely fair to compared autonomous drivers against them.

eurleif 3y ago
If GP's mother switches from driving for herself to having Waymo drive for her, her risk of injury will increase. Therefore, if her goal is to avoid injury, it would be counterproductive for her to make that switch. That conclusion does not require any is-ought fallacy.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Exactly. I know that my odds are different from the average.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    So are you one of the 88% who know they are better than average, or one of the 12% who are worse? https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-drivers-really-think-they-are-above-aver/ https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-driver...
    - eurleif 3y ago
      >Obviously, not everyone can be above average. Exactly half of all drivers have to be in the bottom half when it comes to driving skills and safety. This page is confused about the difference between mean and median. The 88% of drivers who think they are above average are not necessarily correct, but there would be nothing logically inconsistent about them being correct.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      This has nothing to do with being "a better driver" than average. If you simply don't drive while intoxicated, extremely tired, or distracted with your gadgets, you're already beating the average when it comes to collisions and injuries.
      - pooper 3y ago
        > If you simply don't drive while intoxicated, extremely tired, or distracted with your gadgets, you're already beating the average when it comes to collisions and injuries. It still does not make you a good driver. I've personally been in situations where I'm on the right lane, going slightly below the speed limit, when the vehicle (usually a pickup truck) passes me from the shoulder on the right, often blaring it's horns in disapproval as if they were on their way to save lives. > Rules for Using the Shoulder. The laws for using a shoulder vary in each state, but it is illegal in all states to use the shoulder to bypass traffic or to pass another driver. I can't wait to make it illegal for humans to drive on public roads.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        It's mostly that. I don't think I'm more skilled or something. Also, using a smartphone while driving is illegal, but somehow using a 17" touchscreen that mirrors your smartphone and shows incoming texts is OK and common in newer cars.
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      Being better than average is easy because the average is dragged down by people who drive drunk/tired/etc. An average safety robocar would be a downgrade for most responsible people.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        Yeah, I have 0 accidents, so nobody is going to convince me the AI is safer. Meanwhile my car's ESC has tried to send me off a cliff before.
- concordDance 3y ago
  That may be true, but I expect there's no scalable way to assess drivers for GGP mother-ness. So for public policy purposes we should encourage and allow self driving. And possibly even ban manual driving if we can't distinguish GGP mothers from poor drivers.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  All self driving > Reckless drivers only self-driving > current situation > small random population only self-driving > GGPs-mom-likes only self-driving. Unfortunately, identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways), and so would be predicting reckless driving behavior (approximately every driver is reckless at some point anyway, GGP's mom included). So it's all self-driving or no self-driving, and all self-driving is strictly better for all of us, even if GGP's mom has to briefly accept slightly elevated risk.
  - mh- 3y ago
    > identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways) Not sure I follow the thinking here. We already have ability tests in driver's license exams.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Yes, and every mad or reckless driver passed them with flying colors, kind of by definition, otherwise we'd be talking about drivers illegally operating road vehicles. Approximately all traffic accidents involving drivers is involving drivers with valid license, who passed ability tests.
      - eurleif 3y ago
        A simple Google search reveals that the number of accidents caused by unlicensed drivers is ~20%, not ~0%: https://usclaims.com/educational-resources/non-licensed-drivers-responsible-for-20-percent-of-all-auto-accidents/ https://usclaims.com/educational-resources/non-licensed-driv... Moreover, the requirement to receive a license is only to pass, not to pass "with flying colors".
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      Those tests are dangerously insufficient to keep unsafe drivers off the road.
- QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
  If your mother is a decent driver, then almost all the danger she faces while driving comes from other people being shitty.
kaba0 3y ago
In no possible future would we see an immediate change from human drivers to 100% self-driving, so self-driving ought to co-exist with human drivers, both the better than average, and the drunk ones. I’m absolutely not convinced that an AI would fair better at handling a drunk driver’s driving style compared to a competent human. The statistics help AI due to them being good at handling monotony, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to safety in complex situations.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  In a few places, driving too passively (as AI cars seem to do) will cause aggressive drivers to create dangerous situations for you. They don't want to be stuck behind someone who's letting people in. I also wonder if the AI cars go the speed limit on freeways, cause sometimes that's worse than matching traffic that's speeding a bit.
scott_w 3y ago
Others have made better points but I want to add another thing to point out you can also be making the same "is-ought" mistake yourself: Impaired drivers (drink, drugs, sleep), bad drivers, dangerous drivers, etc. who ought to use the self-driving function are exactly the kinds of people who won't and continue to drive badly. What this means is the safer drivers leave it off (because they outperform the system), while dangerous drivers also leave it off because they mistakenly believe they outperform the system. The traits that it's meant to protect people from are the very traits that ensure it can't do its job.
- pooper 3y ago
  When it is good enough, we should remove the ability for humans to drive cars manually in all new cars after that point.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Or even migrate the testing schema to more frequent re-checks and a harder pass condition. If people don't have to drive to thrive in society, we can make driving far more of a privilege. Contrast what a private pilot has to do to get certified.

eurleif 3y ago

If GP's mother switches from driving for herself to having Waymo drive for her, her risk of injury will increase. Therefore, if her goal is to avoid injury, it would be counterproductive for her to make that switch. That conclusion does not require any is-ought fallacy.

hot_gril 3y ago
Exactly. I know that my odds are different from the average.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  So are you one of the 88% who know they are better than average, or one of the 12% who are worse? https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-drivers-really-think-they-are-above-aver/ https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-driver...
  - eurleif 3y ago
    >Obviously, not everyone can be above average. Exactly half of all drivers have to be in the bottom half when it comes to driving skills and safety. This page is confused about the difference between mean and median. The 88% of drivers who think they are above average are not necessarily correct, but there would be nothing logically inconsistent about them being correct.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    This has nothing to do with being "a better driver" than average. If you simply don't drive while intoxicated, extremely tired, or distracted with your gadgets, you're already beating the average when it comes to collisions and injuries.
    - pooper 3y ago
      > If you simply don't drive while intoxicated, extremely tired, or distracted with your gadgets, you're already beating the average when it comes to collisions and injuries. It still does not make you a good driver. I've personally been in situations where I'm on the right lane, going slightly below the speed limit, when the vehicle (usually a pickup truck) passes me from the shoulder on the right, often blaring it's horns in disapproval as if they were on their way to save lives. > Rules for Using the Shoulder. The laws for using a shoulder vary in each state, but it is illegal in all states to use the shoulder to bypass traffic or to pass another driver. I can't wait to make it illegal for humans to drive on public roads.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      It's mostly that. I don't think I'm more skilled or something. Also, using a smartphone while driving is illegal, but somehow using a 17" touchscreen that mirrors your smartphone and shows incoming texts is OK and common in newer cars.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    Being better than average is easy because the average is dragged down by people who drive drunk/tired/etc. An average safety robocar would be a downgrade for most responsible people.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      Yeah, I have 0 accidents, so nobody is going to convince me the AI is safer. Meanwhile my car's ESC has tried to send me off a cliff before.
concordDance 3y ago
That may be true, but I expect there's no scalable way to assess drivers for GGP mother-ness. So for public policy purposes we should encourage and allow self driving. And possibly even ban manual driving if we can't distinguish GGP mothers from poor drivers.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
All self driving > Reckless drivers only self-driving > current situation > small random population only self-driving > GGPs-mom-likes only self-driving. Unfortunately, identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways), and so would be predicting reckless driving behavior (approximately every driver is reckless at some point anyway, GGP's mom included). So it's all self-driving or no self-driving, and all self-driving is strictly better for all of us, even if GGP's mom has to briefly accept slightly elevated risk.
- mh- 3y ago
  > identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways) Not sure I follow the thinking here. We already have ability tests in driver's license exams.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Yes, and every mad or reckless driver passed them with flying colors, kind of by definition, otherwise we'd be talking about drivers illegally operating road vehicles. Approximately all traffic accidents involving drivers is involving drivers with valid license, who passed ability tests.
    - eurleif 3y ago
      A simple Google search reveals that the number of accidents caused by unlicensed drivers is ~20%, not ~0%: https://usclaims.com/educational-resources/non-licensed-drivers-responsible-for-20-percent-of-all-auto-accidents/ https://usclaims.com/educational-resources/non-licensed-driv... Moreover, the requirement to receive a license is only to pass, not to pass "with flying colors".
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Those tests are dangerously insufficient to keep unsafe drivers off the road.
QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
If your mother is a decent driver, then almost all the danger she faces while driving comes from other people being shitty.

kaba0 3y ago

In no possible future would we see an immediate change from human drivers to 100% self-driving, so self-driving ought to co-exist with human drivers, both the better than average, and the drunk ones. I’m absolutely not convinced that an AI would fair better at handling a drunk driver’s driving style compared to a competent human. The statistics help AI due to them being good at handling monotony, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to safety in complex situations.

hot_gril 3y ago
In a few places, driving too passively (as AI cars seem to do) will cause aggressive drivers to create dangerous situations for you. They don't want to be stuck behind someone who's letting people in. I also wonder if the AI cars go the speed limit on freeways, cause sometimes that's worse than matching traffic that's speeding a bit.

scott_w 3y ago

Others have made better points but I want to add another thing to point out you can also be making the same "is-ought" mistake yourself: Impaired drivers (drink, drugs, sleep), bad drivers, dangerous drivers, etc. who ought to use the self-driving function are exactly the kinds of people who won't and continue to drive badly. What this means is the safer drivers leave it off (because they outperform the system), while dangerous drivers also leave it off because they mistakenly believe they outperform the system. The traits that it's meant to protect people from are the very traits that ensure it can't do its job.

pooper 3y ago
When it is good enough, we should remove the ability for humans to drive cars manually in all new cars after that point.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Or even migrate the testing schema to more frequent re-checks and a harder pass condition. If people don't have to drive to thrive in society, we can make driving far more of a privilege. Contrast what a private pilot has to do to get certified.