7 ms·

Drive around how? To the left is the opposite side of the street (in which case the press would write an article about how a waymo drove wrong-way on the stree

by dekhn 2y ago

Drive around how? To the left is the opposite side of the street (in which case the press would write an article about how a waymo drove wrong-way on the street), and the right lane is a bus lane (another article about waymo behavior badly). What you are describing are speculative solutions that a human driver may have done. I think the problems here are systemic, and related more to caddish men than driverless cars.

latexr 2y ago
You’re weirdly fixated on the on the press and Waymo. I specifically mentioned what a human driver could’ve done and your response was “if Waymo did it, the press would write about it”. You’re arguing against a straw man in your head, not what was said. And completely ignoring that the simple presence of another human could itself act as a deterrent. > Drive around how? For starters, there’s a period where they got out of the way and a human could’ve just… Continued to drive forward. Mind blowing, I know. > and the right lane is a bus lane Considering the amount of cars in the video that momentarily go over it and don’t burst into flames, it seems like a perfectly acceptable approach. But again, not even that would’ve been necessary.
- dekhn 2y ago
  I'm fixated on the press and waymo because this is an ongoing cycle of news: person has experience with waymo, puts it on social media, press covers it "oh look self driving cars can't work". Now, on to the part where you mention a person could be a deterrent: if that's the case, society has far more problems than just a single self-driving car. In particular, doesn't that seem to imply that women in cars would need some sort of protector? I'm not going too deeply into the argument. The reason the waymo didn't drive forward is that Google has programmed their cars to be exceptionally cautious- perhaps overly so- to stave off the huge negative press cycle that will happen when they hit or kill somebody in a dramatic way. Same for the bus lane- nobody at Waymo ever thought "Oh, we should violate some driving regulations to save a person from being harassed by assholes". That, like the trolley problem, is literally not something they are concerned with. Because self-driving cars aren't general intelligences designed to solve problems outside the "driving a person to a destination" problem.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > In particular, doesn't that seem to imply that women in cars would need some sort of protector? No. You do realise women are human and can drive, right? And that men can be harassed too? The argument was about numbers, you’re weirdly making it about gender. > The reason the waymo didn't drive forward Is irrelevant. This conversation started because you said it didn’t make a difference that it was a self-driving car. Because a human could’ve made better decisions while still being safe, it follows that it being a self-driving car makes a difference. I’m not arguing that Waymo is wrong to be cautious, I’m just saying it is patently obvious that having a (current tech) robot or a human at the wheel does make a difference, despite your insistence that it doesn’t.
    - dekhn 2y ago
      Of course I'm aware women drive- I'm currently teaching my daughter to drive in the SF Bay Area, and my wife drives 5X the miles I do, and 10X the miles in SF city). I considered writing my text above to include men (I don't want it to be about gender- although, in my experience, harassment of women by men is far more common, and people care about it a lot more). I fully acknowledge that having a physical human driver at the wheel could lead to different outcomes. I do not agree those would necessarily be "better decisions". It looks like the things a human driver could do include: getting out and attacking the offenders (not something I expect my taxi driver to do), racing off (which comes with significant risk, of running people over, getting in an accident, violating regulations), yelling and/or gesticulating (unlikely to have much effect), and running over the offenders intentionally ("I was afraid for my life and moved forward slowly to give them time to move out of the way"). I think you're over-interpreting my statement and misunderstanding my intent. I hope to clarify: I don't think the safety of passengers from external adversaries is a legitimate reason to oppose self-driving cars, nor do I expect self-driving cars to handle external adversaries in the ways that a human driver might. I do expect over time that Waymo will reduce its safety buffers around people who are behaving aggressively. Hope that clears up my intent.
  - squigz 2y ago
    This particular comment thread is about what would happen if this weren't a driverless car... Like GP, I'm a bit confused on why you're so focused on Waymo here? > Now, on to the part where you mention a person could be a deterrent: if that's the case, society has far more problems than just a single self-driving car. Yes, it does. You've surely stumbled on something new here... I'm not sure what your point here could be. Because society treats women terribly, we should ignore ways our technology might put them in further danger, because... wahhh, bad media reporting about Waymo?
maxerickson 2y ago
They are saying that a random human driver would have more leeway. Griping that the press would have a field day with a Waymo car doing that isn't responsive to their point.

by dekhn 2y ago

latexr 2y ago

You’re weirdly fixated on the on the press and Waymo. I specifically mentioned what a human driver could’ve done and your response was “if Waymo did it, the press would write about it”. You’re arguing against a straw man in your head, not what was said. And completely ignoring that the simple presence of another human could itself act as a deterrent. > Drive around how? For starters, there’s a period where they got out of the way and a human could’ve just… Continued to drive forward. Mind blowing, I know. > and the right lane is a bus lane Considering the amount of cars in the video that momentarily go over it and don’t burst into flames, it seems like a perfectly acceptable approach. But again, not even that would’ve been necessary.

dekhn 2y ago
I'm fixated on the press and waymo because this is an ongoing cycle of news: person has experience with waymo, puts it on social media, press covers it "oh look self driving cars can't work". Now, on to the part where you mention a person could be a deterrent: if that's the case, society has far more problems than just a single self-driving car. In particular, doesn't that seem to imply that women in cars would need some sort of protector? I'm not going too deeply into the argument. The reason the waymo didn't drive forward is that Google has programmed their cars to be exceptionally cautious- perhaps overly so- to stave off the huge negative press cycle that will happen when they hit or kill somebody in a dramatic way. Same for the bus lane- nobody at Waymo ever thought "Oh, we should violate some driving regulations to save a person from being harassed by assholes". That, like the trolley problem, is literally not something they are concerned with. Because self-driving cars aren't general intelligences designed to solve problems outside the "driving a person to a destination" problem.
- latexr 2y ago
  > In particular, doesn't that seem to imply that women in cars would need some sort of protector? No. You do realise women are human and can drive, right? And that men can be harassed too? The argument was about numbers, you’re weirdly making it about gender. > The reason the waymo didn't drive forward Is irrelevant. This conversation started because you said it didn’t make a difference that it was a self-driving car. Because a human could’ve made better decisions while still being safe, it follows that it being a self-driving car makes a difference. I’m not arguing that Waymo is wrong to be cautious, I’m just saying it is patently obvious that having a (current tech) robot or a human at the wheel does make a difference, despite your insistence that it doesn’t.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    Of course I'm aware women drive- I'm currently teaching my daughter to drive in the SF Bay Area, and my wife drives 5X the miles I do, and 10X the miles in SF city). I considered writing my text above to include men (I don't want it to be about gender- although, in my experience, harassment of women by men is far more common, and people care about it a lot more). I fully acknowledge that having a physical human driver at the wheel could lead to different outcomes. I do not agree those would necessarily be "better decisions". It looks like the things a human driver could do include: getting out and attacking the offenders (not something I expect my taxi driver to do), racing off (which comes with significant risk, of running people over, getting in an accident, violating regulations), yelling and/or gesticulating (unlikely to have much effect), and running over the offenders intentionally ("I was afraid for my life and moved forward slowly to give them time to move out of the way"). I think you're over-interpreting my statement and misunderstanding my intent. I hope to clarify: I don't think the safety of passengers from external adversaries is a legitimate reason to oppose self-driving cars, nor do I expect self-driving cars to handle external adversaries in the ways that a human driver might. I do expect over time that Waymo will reduce its safety buffers around people who are behaving aggressively. Hope that clears up my intent.
- squigz 2y ago
  This particular comment thread is about what would happen if this weren't a driverless car... Like GP, I'm a bit confused on why you're so focused on Waymo here? > Now, on to the part where you mention a person could be a deterrent: if that's the case, society has far more problems than just a single self-driving car. Yes, it does. You've surely stumbled on something new here... I'm not sure what your point here could be. Because society treats women terribly, we should ignore ways our technology might put them in further danger, because... wahhh, bad media reporting about Waymo?

maxerickson 2y ago

They are saying that a random human driver would have more leeway. Griping that the press would have a field day with a Waymo car doing that isn't responsive to their point.