2 ms·
I wonder how long we can ignore the natural human tendancy to need blame / attribution. The way I think about it is: If, in the limiting case, we replace all d
by jvanderbot 2y ago
I wonder how long we can ignore the natural human tendancy to need blame / attribution.
The way I think about it is: If, in the limiting case, we replace all driver mistakes with software mistakes, and there's 1/2 as many deaths from these mistakes, but they are uniformly distributed, I am honestly not sure how acceptable this would be to the public. It's like sacrificing people randomly to disallow dangerous drivers from causing accidents, even when those accidents would probably have disproportionately affected those very same dangerous drivers (and anyone nearby).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xnx 2y agoAs a safe driver, I am comfortable with this tradeoff. I estimate the chance of me getting killed/maimed by some other speeding/dangerous driver is much greater than getting killed/maimed by a software error.
- jvanderbot 2y agoOK, makes sense if you believe the chances are much different. I'm wondering at what point do we breakeven? 1/2 the chance? 1/4 the chance? 90% the chance? In fact, as a (ostensibly) safe driver, your odds of dying from software-related random choice might even be higher than from dangerous driving today. How many lives would you be willing to save to take on that extra risk to yourself?