2 ms·
> The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's pretty simple: as good as it can be given available technologies
by danans 2y ago
> The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it.
It's pretty simple: as good as it can be given available technologies and techniques, without sacrificing safety for cost or style.
With AVs, function and safety should obviate concerns of style, cost, and marketing. If that doesn't work with your business model, well tough luck.
Airplanes are far safer than cars yet we subject their manufacturers to rigorous standards, or seemingly did until recently, as the 737 max saga has revealed. Even still the rigor is very high compared to road vehicles.
And AVs do have to be way better than people at driving because they are machines that have no sense of human judgement, though they operate in a human physical context.
Machines run by corporations are less accountable than human drivers, not at the least because of the wealth and legal armies of those corporations who may have interests other than making the safest possible AV.
- mavhc 2y agoSurely the number of cars than can do it, and the price, also matters, unless you're going to ban private cars
- danans 2y ago> Surely the number of cars than can do it, and the price, also matters, unless you're going to ban private cars Indeed, like this: the more cars sold that claim fully autonomous capability, and the more affordable they get, the higher the standards should be compared to their AV predecessors, even if they have long eclipsed human driver's safety record. If this is unpalatable, then let's assign 100% liability with steep monetary penalties to the AV manufacturer for any crash that happens under autonomous driving mode.
- mavhc 2y agoAnd the same penalties for Human Driver Beta