4 ms·

Self driving cars just have to be safer than Humans -- probably not that difficult. The annoying part will be entering our destination in to Google Maps Car In

by lozf 12y ago

Self driving cars just have to be safer than Humans -- probably not that difficult. The annoying part will be entering our destination in to Google Maps Car Interface, and having the car tell us: "Because we searched for Chairs the other day, we'll be making a quick stop at our Sponsor: Furniture Warehouse to see their fantastic selection, with free delivery... After all your appointment isn't for another 45 mins and traffic is clear... (you may override this action at a cost of ${LostAdRevenue}"

nl 12y ago
Self driving cars just have to be safer than Humans -- probably not that difficult. Perhaps, on average. But (for example) should someone in the Netherlands trust car trained on US road rules? Or someone in Japan (where they drive on the left hand side of the road) trust software trained in India (where lane discipline is fairly.. loose). Also, saying a system should be permitted because it kills less than humans seems a bit post-hoc. What happens if a bug is introduced that makes it worse in a specific circumstance? Licensing seems a good way to deal with this, though I'm interested in alternatives.
DanBC 12y ago
> Self driving cars just have to be safer than Humans -- probably not that difficult. Sadly, this probably is not true. TERRORISTS are the reason we go through ridiculous security theatre at airports - costig many millions of dollars - when the drive to the airport is very much more risky that flying. People are not rational about risk. They will drive a car because they thinkthey are safe drivers. Giving up control is tricky.
- corobo 12y ago
  Are terrorists driving old fashioned manual control cars into your child's school?! More at 11
freehunter 12y ago
It doesn't just have to be safer, it has to be 100% safe, at least until public consciousness has accepted it. Gasoline cars burst into flames quite often, including when involved in a high speed collision. Car fires around here hardly ever make the radio traffic report, let alone nightly news, regional news, or national news. But when a Tesla catches on fire after a high speed collision, it's national news for days, with pundits wondering if electric cars are safe to drive after all. Doesn't matter that the car detected the fire and kept it contained away from the passenger compartment. Brand new things can rarely get away with being just a little better. They have to be massively, undeniably better, with a lot of money and marketing and pretty faces and charismatic spokespersons in order to overcome public fear and FUD from the existing competitors. Look at Microsoft's commercials: it doesn't matter that the Surface is better than the Macbook Air (as is claimed in the commercial). It's not better enough, and no one at Microsoft is Steve Jobs, so people aren't willing to take the risk. Better isn't good enough, especially when you're telling a person that they're worse than a robot.

by lozf 12y ago

nl 12y ago

Self driving cars just have to be safer than Humans -- probably not that difficult. Perhaps, on average. But (for example) should someone in the Netherlands trust car trained on US road rules? Or someone in Japan (where they drive on the left hand side of the road) trust software trained in India (where lane discipline is fairly.. loose). Also, saying a system should be permitted because it kills less than humans seems a bit post-hoc. What happens if a bug is introduced that makes it worse in a specific circumstance? Licensing seems a good way to deal with this, though I'm interested in alternatives.

DanBC 12y ago

> Self driving cars just have to be safer than Humans -- probably not that difficult. Sadly, this probably is not true. TERRORISTS are the reason we go through ridiculous security theatre at airports - costig many millions of dollars - when the drive to the airport is very much more risky that flying. People are not rational about risk. They will drive a car because they thinkthey are safe drivers. Giving up control is tricky.

corobo 12y ago
Are terrorists driving old fashioned manual control cars into your child's school?! More at 11

freehunter 12y ago

It doesn't just have to be safer, it has to be 100% safe, at least until public consciousness has accepted it. Gasoline cars burst into flames quite often, including when involved in a high speed collision. Car fires around here hardly ever make the radio traffic report, let alone nightly news, regional news, or national news. But when a Tesla catches on fire after a high speed collision, it's national news for days, with pundits wondering if electric cars are safe to drive after all. Doesn't matter that the car detected the fire and kept it contained away from the passenger compartment. Brand new things can rarely get away with being just a little better. They have to be massively, undeniably better, with a lot of money and marketing and pretty faces and charismatic spokespersons in order to overcome public fear and FUD from the existing competitors. Look at Microsoft's commercials: it doesn't matter that the Surface is better than the Macbook Air (as is claimed in the commercial). It's not better enough, and no one at Microsoft is Steve Jobs, so people aren't willing to take the risk. Better isn't good enough, especially when you're telling a person that they're worse than a robot.