4 ms·

>I don't want to share the road, to put my life in the hands of robots. What? This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Humans are terrible drivers. A robot do

>I don't want to share the road, to put my life in the hands of robots. What? This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Humans are terrible drivers. A robot doesn't get tired, drunk, spaced out, inattentive, distracted, or perform dangerous maneuvers or fall asleep at the wheel. They are able to accurately assess the safest way to drive, humans are terrible at that and incredibly bad at assessing risk. Robots don't have blindspots or loss of vision at night. Robots have quicker reflexes and a wider field of view. Robots don't get road rage. Robots dont get senile. Robots know the rules of the road. You need little more than a pulse to get a drivers license. I'm shocked how often licensed drivers get confused by 4 way stops. Honestly, its terrifying to put my life in the hands of humans. Myself included, because everyone can make a mistake from time to time.

smacktoward 12y ago
Agreed, but robots aren't perfect just by virtue of being robots. They are only as good as the systems design and programming that goes into them. Given the quality of programming that goes into lots of other "smart" devices these days, I'm not sure having a robot drive is all that much less scary than having me do it.
sandworm 12y ago
Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a mechanical system to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. The car in the OP is not one that supplements a driver's vision and reaction time. It is a system that totally replaces it. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car without human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the car's systems are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. Pedestrians at crosswalks have the advantage of signing, lights and cross-streets to alert the system to the possible presence of humans. Motorcyclists must stand in random places unprotected (ie stop and go traffic).
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  >Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car without human supervision? Once the cars have been rigorously tested, yes!! I'd much prefer that to a drunk guy swatting at his kids in the back seat while chatting on the phone. (If you don't think that scenario that happens regularly, you are mistaken)
- scott_s 12y ago
  At the moment, no, I am not willing to do that. Because the technology is not yet good enough. But it may be possible for the technology to be that good. Let's assume that in the future, we have tests after tests showing that the automated systems have better performance than humans. Then, yes, I would be willing. In that case, we have two faulty navigation systems, but one out-performs the other.
- bryondowd 12y ago
  I fixed this for you: ____ Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a typical driver to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car with human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the driver's credentials and eyeglass prescription are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. ____ Personally. As soon as computers can be proven to have a catastrophic error rate lower than human drivers, statistically, I'm all for it. From there, it can only get better. And in case it isn't obvious, my point is your argument didn't really have anything specific to machine vs human driver. It's essentially saying "I don't trust robots, because they aren't humans." The only thing that should really matter is results, and that will only be determined by testing and comparing.
- JshWright 12y ago
  You put _way_ too much faith in human beings... I spend a lot of time hanging out in the middle of the road in less than ideal conditions. The leading cause of death and injury for paramedics are motor vehicle accidents. Speaking for myself, I eagerly await the day when we get to remove the least reliable element of most cars... the driver.
jallmann 12y ago
Humans and robots have very different failure modes. The problem with robots is ensuring they gracefully recover from unexpected states, whether induced maliciously or not. Everybody on HN should understand the difficulty of writing correct and reliable software; now add in the uncertainty of an extremely dynamic physical environment. As someone who's done a lot of computer vision, it is incredible how autonomous vehicles have managed to coalesce a set of extremely brittle techniques into something that somehow seems to work OK most(?) of the time... Even if all the software was statically proven to be correct (is that even true for any vehicle on the road today?), there will still be a fundamentally heuristic layer as input to the control system. No, what's terrifying is how people are willing to put blind faith into a technology without considering all its implications. Realistic skepticism is entirely warranted, especially during these early phases of autonomous driving.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  I never put blind faith in technology. I just am incredibly aware of how terrible human drivers are and how much car accidents kill. I guess you've never seen someone who absolutely shouldn't drive? I have a few family members with cognitive impairments who terrorize the road everyday and yet still are legal to drive, it isn't easy to lose your licence and traffic enforcement is minimal. How many people do you know who go out drinking and drive home drunk on a regular basis? I know quite a few, there's nothing I can do to stop them!!! They all say "oh, well I can drive drunk fine." There will be a time when computers out preform humans. Technology isn't ready for prime time yet, but we will get there sometime. We do not need perfection to deploy robotic cars, we need them to SIGNIFICANTLY outperform humans. I also personally know quite a few young people who have died. Teenagers-early 20s. All in car accidents. I know two people who have lost (teenage) children in car accidents. We need something better.
  - jallmann 12y ago
    Nobody is saying that humans are perfect drivers; that is a red herring. The question is whether driver-less technology is ready to subsume humans. Without critically thinking about the state of current technology and its limitations, we might as well be championing Star Trek transporters. Why drive when we can simply beam somewhere? So far I am hearing a lot of Star Trek and no real discussion of OP's valid concerns.

smacktoward 12y ago

Agreed, but robots aren't perfect just by virtue of being robots. They are only as good as the systems design and programming that goes into them. Given the quality of programming that goes into lots of other "smart" devices these days, I'm not sure having a robot drive is all that much less scary than having me do it.

sandworm 12y ago

Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a mechanical system to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. The car in the OP is not one that supplements a driver's vision and reaction time. It is a system that totally replaces it. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car without human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the car's systems are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. Pedestrians at crosswalks have the advantage of signing, lights and cross-streets to alert the system to the possible presence of humans. Motorcyclists must stand in random places unprotected (ie stop and go traffic).

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
>Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car without human supervision? Once the cars have been rigorously tested, yes!! I'd much prefer that to a drunk guy swatting at his kids in the back seat while chatting on the phone. (If you don't think that scenario that happens regularly, you are mistaken)
scott_s 12y ago
At the moment, no, I am not willing to do that. Because the technology is not yet good enough. But it may be possible for the technology to be that good. Let's assume that in the future, we have tests after tests showing that the automated systems have better performance than humans. Then, yes, I would be willing. In that case, we have two faulty navigation systems, but one out-performs the other.
bryondowd 12y ago
I fixed this for you: ____ Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a typical driver to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car with human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the driver's credentials and eyeglass prescription are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. ____ Personally. As soon as computers can be proven to have a catastrophic error rate lower than human drivers, statistically, I'm all for it. From there, it can only get better. And in case it isn't obvious, my point is your argument didn't really have anything specific to machine vs human driver. It's essentially saying "I don't trust robots, because they aren't humans." The only thing that should really matter is results, and that will only be determined by testing and comparing.
JshWright 12y ago
You put _way_ too much faith in human beings... I spend a lot of time hanging out in the middle of the road in less than ideal conditions. The leading cause of death and injury for paramedics are motor vehicle accidents. Speaking for myself, I eagerly await the day when we get to remove the least reliable element of most cars... the driver.

jallmann 12y ago

Humans and robots have very different failure modes. The problem with robots is ensuring they gracefully recover from unexpected states, whether induced maliciously or not. Everybody on HN should understand the difficulty of writing correct and reliable software; now add in the uncertainty of an extremely dynamic physical environment. As someone who's done a lot of computer vision, it is incredible how autonomous vehicles have managed to coalesce a set of extremely brittle techniques into something that somehow seems to work OK most(?) of the time... Even if all the software was statically proven to be correct (is that even true for any vehicle on the road today?), there will still be a fundamentally heuristic layer as input to the control system. No, what's terrifying is how people are willing to put blind faith into a technology without considering all its implications. Realistic skepticism is entirely warranted, especially during these early phases of autonomous driving.

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
I never put blind faith in technology. I just am incredibly aware of how terrible human drivers are and how much car accidents kill. I guess you've never seen someone who absolutely shouldn't drive? I have a few family members with cognitive impairments who terrorize the road everyday and yet still are legal to drive, it isn't easy to lose your licence and traffic enforcement is minimal. How many people do you know who go out drinking and drive home drunk on a regular basis? I know quite a few, there's nothing I can do to stop them!!! They all say "oh, well I can drive drunk fine." There will be a time when computers out preform humans. Technology isn't ready for prime time yet, but we will get there sometime. We do not need perfection to deploy robotic cars, we need them to SIGNIFICANTLY outperform humans. I also personally know quite a few young people who have died. Teenagers-early 20s. All in car accidents. I know two people who have lost (teenage) children in car accidents. We need something better.
- jallmann 12y ago
  Nobody is saying that humans are perfect drivers; that is a red herring. The question is whether driver-less technology is ready to subsume humans. Without critically thinking about the state of current technology and its limitations, we might as well be championing Star Trek transporters. Why drive when we can simply beam somewhere? So far I am hearing a lot of Star Trek and no real discussion of OP's valid concerns.