4 ms·

But isn't that also because it's new? Plenty of people die in work accidents because equipment malfunctions, but unless it's a specific type of equipment blowin

But isn't that also because it's new? Plenty of people die in work accidents because equipment malfunctions, but unless it's a specific type of equipment blowing up at alarming rates, nobody asks to pause e.g. all power-drills. I believe that has been pretty much figured out, and insurance companies offer policies that cover it. Sure, they are usually not "intelligent", but are auto-pilots in cars?

scarface_74 2y ago
The people who die in workplace accidents are only affecting them. It’s completely different if an autonomous vehicle injured someone else. Also dangerous workplaces are carefully controlled access environments where only the people that work there are in danger. Imagine if airplane fatalities happen even 1% as often as car fatalities? Right now the ratio is around 770:1 per passenger mile.
- luckylion 2y ago
  I assume that airplanes would have to offer much more value for that to be accepted, but they are mostly a luxury while cars are a necessity - life as we know it in much of the Western world would come to a screeching halt without cars, but it continues mostly unchanged without planes. I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those machines that kill them - I'd say the workers _are_ someone else. It's just that we've gotten used to that, and we feel like the number is steady and low enough that it's easily outweighed by the gigantic benefits we get from industrialization. My assumption is that it's the same way for cars and car-related deaths, but we haven't extended it to self-driving cars yet. Individually, everybody sees the benefit, but once integration of FSD hits the commercial side and consumer prices are being reduced as a direct consequence, deaths become work-place accidents. Like a truck with a human driver killing an "innocent" pedestrian - it's accepted because we really want the trucks.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    > I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those machines that kill them - I'd say the workers _are_ someone else. I’m not saying only the workers benefit. I’m saying there is no outrage if some coal miners die in West Virginia and definitely there is no outrage about the working conditions of immigrant farmers, factory workers at Amazon warehouses, and definitely not the supply chains overseas. But if little Becky got killed by an autonomous car, you would have all sorts of hearings.
    - luckylion 2y ago
      But if little Becky got killed by a non-autonomous car, there's a lot of shrugs, because cars are awesome. My point being that FSD cars are even more awesome and society will realize that once they are more numerous. They'll be safer and cheaper, and some collateral damage will be accepted just like it is today.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        I’m not saying that FSD wouldn’t be technically awesome. I am saying there would be a lot of political posturing if Becky got killed. The American citizens won’t accept vaccines, fluoride, and believe that immigrants are eating pets. The very definition of “conservative” is not accepting change.

scarface_74 2y ago

The people who die in workplace accidents are only affecting them. It’s completely different if an autonomous vehicle injured someone else. Also dangerous workplaces are carefully controlled access environments where only the people that work there are in danger. Imagine if airplane fatalities happen even 1% as often as car fatalities? Right now the ratio is around 770:1 per passenger mile.

luckylion 2y ago
I assume that airplanes would have to offer much more value for that to be accepted, but they are mostly a luxury while cars are a necessity - life as we know it in much of the Western world would come to a screeching halt without cars, but it continues mostly unchanged without planes. I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those machines that kill them - I'd say the workers _are_ someone else. It's just that we've gotten used to that, and we feel like the number is steady and low enough that it's easily outweighed by the gigantic benefits we get from industrialization. My assumption is that it's the same way for cars and car-related deaths, but we haven't extended it to self-driving cars yet. Individually, everybody sees the benefit, but once integration of FSD hits the commercial side and consumer prices are being reduced as a direct consequence, deaths become work-place accidents. Like a truck with a human driver killing an "innocent" pedestrian - it's accepted because we really want the trucks.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  > I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those machines that kill them - I'd say the workers _are_ someone else. I’m not saying only the workers benefit. I’m saying there is no outrage if some coal miners die in West Virginia and definitely there is no outrage about the working conditions of immigrant farmers, factory workers at Amazon warehouses, and definitely not the supply chains overseas. But if little Becky got killed by an autonomous car, you would have all sorts of hearings.
  - luckylion 2y ago
    But if little Becky got killed by a non-autonomous car, there's a lot of shrugs, because cars are awesome. My point being that FSD cars are even more awesome and society will realize that once they are more numerous. They'll be safer and cheaper, and some collateral damage will be accepted just like it is today.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      I’m not saying that FSD wouldn’t be technically awesome. I am saying there would be a lot of political posturing if Becky got killed. The American citizens won’t accept vaccines, fluoride, and believe that immigrants are eating pets. The very definition of “conservative” is not accepting change.