3 ms·
> You have to know what you're fixing first. In this case the expected behaviour is clearly spelled out in the law. > You're going to write a lot of code in b
by krisoft 1y ago
> You have to know what you're fixing first.
In this case the expected behaviour is clearly spelled out in the law.
> You're going to write a lot of code in blood this way.
Do note that in this case nobody died or got hurt. People observed that the autonomous vehicles did not follow the rules, the company got notified of this fact and they are working on a fix. No blood was spilled to achieve this result.
Also note that we spill much blood on our roads already. And we do that without much of any hope of learning from individual accidents. When George runs over John there is no way to turn that into a lesson for all drivers. There is no way to understand what went wrong in George’s head, and then there is no way to adjust all driver’s heads so that particular problem won’t happen again.
- jfoster 1y agoAnd "much blood" is (globally) to the tune of ~1.2 million lives lost, and many more injuries. Compared to that, autonomous vehicles have barely harmed anyone. Also they will probably save most of those lives once they become good. The "least harm" approach is to scale autonomous vehicles as quickly as possible even if they do have accidents sometimes.
- Earw0rm 1y agoThat's true at least once they surpass human drivers in collisions per driver mile under equivalent conditions. It seems like we're pretty close to that point, but the numbers need to be treated with care for various reasons. (Robotaxis aren't dealing with the same proportions of conditions - city vs suburban vs freeway - and we should probably exclude collisions caused by human bad-actors which should have fallen within the remit of law enforcement - drink/drugs, grossly excessive speed and so on).
- sdenton4 1y agoWhy should we exclude the cases of human bad-actors? That's explicitly a major case solved by getting rid of the human behind the wheel...
- rightbyte 1y agoI don't think we are better off putting Elon Musk behind every wheel.
- TOMDM 1y agoGood thing no one is suggesting that
- rightbyte 1y agoI was a bot hyperbolic but having Teslas steer by wire with remote code execution is close enough to an Elon Musk behind every wheel. What was the name of the movie, "Leave the World Behind"?
- harperlee 1y agoNot sure about a movie but that reminded me of the "Driver" short story in the "Valuable Humans In Transit and Other Stories" tome by QNTM (https://qntm.org/vhitaos https://qntm.org/vhitaos). I'd recommend to buy the book, but here's an early draft of that particular story: https://qntm.org/frame https://qntm.org/frame
- inglor_cz 1y agoThis is a tradeoff, in which the original case might have been the less dangerous one. Autonomous fleets have a major potential flaw too, in form of a malicious hacker gaining control over multiple vehicles at once and wreaking havoc. Imagine if every model XY suddenly got a malicious OTA update and started actively chasing pedestrians.
- sdenton4 1y agoHm, so you would put a hypothetical scenario on the same footing as thousands of actual deaths caused by drunk drivers each year? 30% of us road fatalities involve a drunk driver each year... I seriously doubt that the "mass takeover and murder" scenario would ever actually happen, and further doubt that it would cause anywhere near 10k deaths if it did occur.
- Earw0rm 1y agoThere are ways, but our individualistic, consumerist, convenience-first society is reluctant to implement them - as, same as gun control, they're incompatible with certain notions of freedom.