3 ms·
> I am convinced, though, that using FSD judiciously will save far more lives than removing it will. This is a statement of faith. IMO cars are dangerous, whe
by jazzyjackson 2y ago
> I am convinced, though, that using FSD judiciously will save far more lives than removing it will.
This is a statement of faith.
IMO cars are dangerous, whether they have a level headed experienced driver or an all seeing all knowing AI, sometimes a car pulls out from a blind drive or a tire fails and swerves into oncoming traffic. It's not clear to me why people think having a computer drive 95% of the time so they don't have to will make them better able to avoid accidents in exceptional cases.
In the case of pilots, even tho a computer can handle all manner of weather, pilots are still required to put in manual flying time so they actually know how the craft handles under their control, so that they can be ready to take over in case of exceptional events. I think we will see the same regulation in cars eventually, requiring drivers to have minimum hours per year in order to continue piloting craft, even if AI is good enough to do it most of the time.
- fragmede 2y agoIn the case of the blind driveway situation, there's a safe, marked speed for roads with blind driveways on them. A driver (human or AI) going that speed can avoid a car pulling out from it. The assumption for higher safety is that the impatient emotional human that's late for work who's husband just left them is speeding excessively, while the AI isn't.
- jazzyjackson 2y agoagreed, but in that case isn't the solution to simply require that all cars are manufactured with speed limiters that comply with the database of speed limits on a per road basis? if the goal is safety.
- fragmede 2y agoThat's not out of the question. The Nissan GT-R in Japan is geofenced to only allow excessive speeding on racetracks.