> Machines distribute accidents without bias Isn't that a good thing? Or are we assuming we have control over the other drivers who are bad drivers and will ki

> Machines distribute accidents without bias Isn't that a good thing? Or are we assuming we have control over the other drivers who are bad drivers and will kill us when they wreck into us? > Also, if you know a car is being driven by a human rather than a machine, you can use your empathy to anticipate what a human driver is going to do in a situation and prepare for that People keep claiming this but I think it's a claim without sufficient evidence. I've watched humans go backwards up a one-way street. I've watched humans stop at three stop signs and miss the forth. I've watched humans drive perfectly up until the point they had a coronary. I suspect it's something people like to believe because they get to say "I avoided that idiot swerving on the highway; that kept me safe" and they miss the huge confirmation bias that they're really safe because they didn't get wiped out by the guy who had the heart attack and suddenly drifted into the oncoming traffic lane, leaving no time to react. It's an illusion-of-safety feeling that, ironically, comes from so many human drivers being erratic in non-immediately-dangerous ways, far more often than an automated vehicle is erratic at all. We don't hear a lot about from the tens of thousands of drivers killed on the road every year failed to use empathy to avoid that crash, because they're dead. So we're missing a huge datapoint to evaluate the "humans can communicate with each other empathetically on the road so they're safer than sharing the road with automata" claim.