3 ms·
It's very interesting, because on one side we have clear data showing that autonomous cars at the Waymo level are safer than humans. On the other hand we don't
by epolanski 2mo ago
It's very interesting, because on one side we have clear data showing that autonomous cars at the Waymo level are safer than humans.
On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.
Which means that self-driving cars need to be a magnitude of order safer than humans.
And even though a self-driving car will never road rage or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets, we'll still tolerate humans driving more than one odd 1-in-a-billion ai-error caused incident.
- sudokatsu 2mo agoWe don’t tolerate machine incidents because who is liable if an accident occurs? A company with a $4.6 trillion market cap? They’re not a legal opponent any of us really want to take on.
- xnx 2mo agoLawyers are salivating at the possibility of suing Waymo if they ever make a mistake. Much better to be hit by a Waymo (or a Tesla Robotaxi) than the typical uninsured, "judgement proof", human driver.
- sudokatsu 2mo agoAny stats to back up that the _typical_ driver is uninsured?
- xnx 2mo agoAn exaggeration on my part. About 16% of all drivers are uninsured (https://insurance-research.org/node/130 https://insurance-research.org/node/130), but "accident probability of uninsured drivers is 34 percentage points higher" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19439962.2018.1477892 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19439962.2018.1...).
- sgustard 2mo agoExactly, imagine the huge sums of liability insurance Google is carrying to make payouts when the worst-case scenario happens. That financial burden is a prime driver of their operational safety record.
- sebzim4500 2mo agoGood point because massive insurance companies can't afford lawyers and no one ever sues large companies.
- overgard 2mo agoI don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make. IE, humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations. I think the "fail to respond to novel situations" is probably the biggest blocker for people to trust them enough for widespread deployment. I'd love to see one of these things drive on a poorly mapped dirt road up in the mountains, for instance (I'm not saying it can't -- I just mean I would personally love to see how it can adapt to that kind of situation)
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago> humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations Humans fail chaotically. AVs, at least Waymos, fail safely. In urban environments, there is a case to be made within a few years for banning (or making it massively cumbersome) to manually pilot a private vehicle.
- stefan_ 2mo agoThat's an odd claim. Human failures are uncorrelated, but the Waymos all running the same software must be expected to fail in the same way, in the situations in which they fail. Which is why they often make the news; one Waymo stuck soon sees many of its brethren join it.
- ericmay 2mo agoDon't humans fail in the same way too, broadly speaking? Wouldn't it depend on how you categorize failure? If a Waymo failed because it missed a stop sign, and then another Waymo failed because it was confused about some strange markings on the road, is that not failing "the same way" in the same sense that a person failing to yield or driving drunk?
- 2mo ago
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago> we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans This was the hypothesis. But based on e.g. FSD, it doesn’t seem borne out in reality.
- decimalenough 2mo agoWe have a much higher level of tolerance for things that benefit us while posing a risk to others ("should my own car have FSD") than we do for things that benefit others while posing a risk to us ("should Waymos be allowed in my neighborhood").
- brunoborges 2mo ago> On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones. It comes down to accountability, IMO. We tend to be forgiven to humans because we are humans too and we know we, humans, make mistakes, and these can have serious consequences. When a human makes a mistake, they are immediately accountable, and therefore judged and forgiven (or not). When technology makes a mistake, who's to blame? The CEO? The software developer who wrote the code? The tester? The architect? Yes, we want technology to be an order of magnitude safer than humans for this reason, because we know that, given the current way our judicial system works, when technology makes a mistake, no one is held accountable.
- jazzyjackson 2mo ago> a self-driving car will never … use the car as a weapon You are lacking in creativity and vision. With networked autonomous vehicles, all cars can be used as a weapon simultaneously.
- dylan604 2mo agoWhen a human driver messes up, there's a person to hold responsible. When a robot car messes up, who is held responsible? If the human messes up to the point they are no longer allowed to drive, that person is no longer on the streets to cause more mistakes. When a robot car messes up, are all of the other cars pulled off the streets as well until the glitch is fixed? Every robot car is essentially the same driver.
- epolanski 2mo ago> When a robot car messes up, who is held responsible? The company owning and operating the robot?
- sudokatsu 2mo agoAh yes, can’t wait to sue Google on equal monetary and political footing. It will be very easy, and very fair. /s
- Synthetic7346 2mo agoAlso how does one arrest a company? Put the c suite behind bars?
- navigate8310 2mo agoYou can't easily and legally lift the corporate veil
- elliottkember 2mo agoMistakes aren’t glitches when the environment is so dynamic. I imagine they are making errors constantly, and constantly learning from them. When a robot car makes a mistake, all robot cars learn from the experience. When a human messes up, only that human learns from it.
- cortesoft 2mo agoWhile we hold humans financially responsible for all accidents, we don’t hold them personally responsible in every case. Most accidents end with no arrests or even tickets. If your hand slips on the steering wheel, you don’t go to jail. Robot cars would be the same. Insurance is financially responsible, and if the accident is deemed caused by a flaw, it would be the company that made them that is held responsible for fixing it.
- hvb2 2mo ago> meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones. Any company that builds self driving cars or operates them should show how reliable they think they are. Not by showing pr material or stats, that's all 'free'. Make yourself, as the company, legally liable. If you think it's good, put your name on it and own the risk. When that happens, I'll trust whoever says it's safe.
- shakna 2mo agoIf a human makes a mistake, we give them the liability to own up to their mistakes, and carry the costs. Most self-driving enterprises are trying very hard to ensure their non-driver continues to carry this liability instead of their company. This helps a them v. us attitude. The company needs to be trusted widescale by the public, and do seem to undercut their own PR efforts on that, repeatedly.
- phinnaeus 2mo ago> a magnitude of order unless I'm missing something, you meant "order of magnitude"
- andrewmutz 2mo ago> On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones. I completely disagree with this. I don't "give a pass" to humans killing other humans with a car. Every year that skeptics delay adoption of autonomous driving is another year where tens of thousands of deaths could be prevented.
- munk-a 2mo agoTesla, in particular, has given those skeptics so much ammunition to be mad at. The delay isn't purely due to luddites but also somewhat driven by prior obvious bad actions by self-driving car companies. It's also likely that if a switchover is aggressively pursued it'll cause a massive social backlash and likely evolve into a culture war issue.
- bluGill 2mo agoI'm still waiting to see independent analysis of the data. Autonomous driving has the potential to be better, but without data I have no idea if it is really better, or even worse. I've seen lots of people talking, but when I dig in I quickly discover they either don't have access to the full data; or they have reason to be biased and so cannot be trusted. There are many ways to "lie with statistics". You don't even have to be that smart to make some educated guesses. (for starters all drivers include drunk drivers who are a tiny minority and yet make up for an outsized share of issues. As someone who doesn't drink at all their statistics should not compare to me personally)
- munk-a 2mo ago> or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets On the contrary, autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside. Instead you just place an explosive in the device and send it to the intended destination - as an organization the primary concern then becomes whether the ride is traceable back to you which might be do-able given how "frictionless" rideapps are as long as you get a burner phone, prepaid credit card and are very careful about making sure the device is clean and can't be tied to your person. Right now the tech is limited to places where carbombings aren't commonplace, but I think driverless cars open a huge potential issue in other markets. I absolutely agree they're safer than drivers are, but let's not be hyperbolic.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago> autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside Every city has courier services, including Uber.
- inigyou 2mo agoAn Uber driver was recently incarcerated for driving a package of drugs 7 hours.
- panick21_ 2mo agoThe solution is that we should give humans and waymo way less tolerance.