4 ms·

Most states and communities aren't ok with unproven AVs on their streets causing accidents and injuries, even if they are superficially politically aligned with

by danans 2y ago

Most states and communities aren't ok with unproven AVs on their streets causing accidents and injuries, even if they are superficially politically aligned with the AV manufacturer's CEO. That's a good thing, we shouldn't be lowering the bar for AVs.

ls612 2y ago
There’s a chicken and egg issue with this in that to become proven the AV needs to drive somewhere for a while.
- danans 2y ago
  > to become proven the AV needs to drive somewhere for a while. There's a straightforward solution to this that doesn't compromise public safety: Employ paid training drivers who monitor the AV while it is collecting training data in environments where it does not yet meet the safety bar. These drivers are paid to be observant and intervene to avoid accidents. Furthermore, in their interventions, these training drivers provide critical training data used to improve the system.
  - ls612 2y ago
    Uber did exactly that and got excoriated when the paid driver was on her phone and the car killed someone on the freeway. I think many people raising are concern trolling this because they either don’t want private cars in favor of public transportation or because they are luddites towards automation of driving jobs.
    - danans 2y ago
      > Uber did exactly that and got excoriated when the paid driver was on her phone and the car killed someone on the freeway. This is what Waymo does also. Perhaps Uber should have been more careful whom they hire, or put stronger controls on what they are allowed to do in the car.
kortilla 2y ago
AVs already exceed the quite low bar for humans. The real crux is liability when they screw up.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  They exceed the minimum viable human driver. They're some combination of a teenager and grandma. They generally get where they're going safely but anyone who's not a minimum viable driver is cringing pretty often. Nobody wants to let a minimum viable driver chauffeur them around every day. Accepting the reduced quality of performance and increased risk a short duration cab ride is another story.

by danans 2y ago

ls612 2y ago

There’s a chicken and egg issue with this in that to become proven the AV needs to drive somewhere for a while.

danans 2y ago
> to become proven the AV needs to drive somewhere for a while. There's a straightforward solution to this that doesn't compromise public safety: Employ paid training drivers who monitor the AV while it is collecting training data in environments where it does not yet meet the safety bar. These drivers are paid to be observant and intervene to avoid accidents. Furthermore, in their interventions, these training drivers provide critical training data used to improve the system.
- ls612 2y ago
  Uber did exactly that and got excoriated when the paid driver was on her phone and the car killed someone on the freeway. I think many people raising are concern trolling this because they either don’t want private cars in favor of public transportation or because they are luddites towards automation of driving jobs.
  - danans 2y ago
    > Uber did exactly that and got excoriated when the paid driver was on her phone and the car killed someone on the freeway. This is what Waymo does also. Perhaps Uber should have been more careful whom they hire, or put stronger controls on what they are allowed to do in the car.

kortilla 2y ago

AVs already exceed the quite low bar for humans. The real crux is liability when they screw up.

potato3732842 2y ago
They exceed the minimum viable human driver. They're some combination of a teenager and grandma. They generally get where they're going safely but anyone who's not a minimum viable driver is cringing pretty often. Nobody wants to let a minimum viable driver chauffeur them around every day. Accepting the reduced quality of performance and increased risk a short duration cab ride is another story.