4 ms·

> humans are much better at avoiding accidents (not immune, but much better) Are they, really, or is it a question of liability? If we could "lease" AI drivers

> humans are much better at avoiding accidents (not immune, but much better) Are they, really, or is it a question of liability? If we could "lease" AI drivers, allowing companies to defray liability while still not paying unreliable humans, they'd do it. But then the owners of the AI leasing companies wouldn't have anywhere to hide from lawsuits. Being able to blame and fire an individual human for what is really a systemic problem is a huge win for companies.

ben_w 3y ago
Insurance is where I'm currently looking to get an unbiased view of the quality of the current (and expected near-future) state of the art for AI. This suggests that we'll probably be at the right level for cars in 5 years: https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/industry/financial-services/financial-services-industry-predictions/2023/fsi-autonomous-vehicle-insurance-predictions.html https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/industry/financial-... My personal best guess is that it will take a further 5-10 years past the point where no-steering-wheel-included self-driving cars are a thing for the electrical power requirements of AI to reduce from something you can fit in a car to something you can fit into an android. As someone misread me last time I said this, that's not 5-10 years from today, it's 5-10 years gap between two things we don't yet have. > Being able to blame and fire an individual human for what is really a systemic problem is a huge win for companies. I disagree. In the UK at least you need public liability insurance for basically all business functions (rent a town hall for an afternoon? They want to see your insurance certificate). Even if those insurance people ultimately sue some individual to recover costs, even if that bankrupts the individual and the court orders their wages garnished for the rest of their lives, it's very easy for someone to cause damages exceeding their lifetime earnings — a single accidental death can cause such damages all by itself, though the most common cause of this, driving, generally doesn't come with such harsh penalties on the human responsible.

ben_w 3y ago

Insurance is where I'm currently looking to get an unbiased view of the quality of the current (and expected near-future) state of the art for AI. This suggests that we'll probably be at the right level for cars in 5 years: https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/industry/financial-services/financial-services-industry-predictions/2023/fsi-autonomous-vehicle-insurance-predictions.html https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/industry/financial-... My personal best guess is that it will take a further 5-10 years past the point where no-steering-wheel-included self-driving cars are a thing for the electrical power requirements of AI to reduce from something you can fit in a car to something you can fit into an android. As someone misread me last time I said this, that's not 5-10 years from today, it's 5-10 years gap between two things we don't yet have. > Being able to blame and fire an individual human for what is really a systemic problem is a huge win for companies. I disagree. In the UK at least you need public liability insurance for basically all business functions (rent a town hall for an afternoon? They want to see your insurance certificate). Even if those insurance people ultimately sue some individual to recover costs, even if that bankrupts the individual and the court orders their wages garnished for the rest of their lives, it's very easy for someone to cause damages exceeding their lifetime earnings — a single accidental death can cause such damages all by itself, though the most common cause of this, driving, generally doesn't come with such harsh penalties on the human responsible.