5 ms·

I'm a little bit confused about why there's such a negative reaction to this on HN - it seems like a pretty reasonable statement to make, no? Sure, I don't thin

I'm a little bit confused about why there's such a negative reaction to this on HN - it seems like a pretty reasonable statement to make, no? Sure, I don't think there's any firm idea of when 'robotic' drivers will overtake humans in terms of safety. But it does seem pretty clear that it will eventually happen. Self-driving cars have a few massive potential advantages relative to humans, such as faster reaction times, no distractions, the ability to directly communicate car-to-car, and so on. It certainly seems likely that those advantages will far outweigh the adaptability of humans – after all, aren't most accidents caused by distraction, driving too fast for the conditions and the like?

cheatsheet 12y ago
The only thing I am concerned with is how secure / exploitable they are from a computer security perspective. I assume there will be some kind of link between the vehicular peripherals to vehicle control and configuration. Then I worry about who is actually controlling the car. I'm open to AI driven cars with redundant intelligent networks, but people are smart too, and some people are not nice people. How do you know that the entire system is functioning as expected? I'm pretty sure that's NP hard.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  Definitely a concern, but I'm not sure what can be done about that – except for "let's develop the technology so that can't happen", even though that seems unlikely.
- undersuit 12y ago
  > people are smart too, and some people are not nice people. What did you do to these people? Because there are two reasons these people aren't going to be nice to you: you offended them, or you're a random target of violence that we already experience, but now it takes the form of a homicidal self driving car instead of a boy in a movie theater with automatic weapons. Are you advocating we stop pursuing self driving cars just because security is an open ended problem?
  - cheatsheet 12y ago
    I expressed my own personal concern. This conversation will not be about equivocating one tragedy to another. That is a red herring.
closetnerd 12y ago
I think the reason you're confused is because you're under the impression that people are arguing against the very obvious practical benefits of having only self driving cars: congestion, safety, etc. This is obvious to everyone. However, there are other human concerns. I personally enjoy driving. I often go on drives where I'm simply exploring, not knowing which turn I might take next. It's my personal belief that driving is not just my privilege, but my right. If you want a self driving car, you're well within your rights to do as I am to drive my self. Moreover, there's a huge scope of privacy issues and increased amount of control being put in the government. I am one of those individuals who is inherently distrusting of government policies that can restrict us under the guise of safety, etc.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  However, there are other human concerns. I personally enjoy driving. I often go on drives where I'm simply exploring, not knowing which turn I might take next. It's my personal belief that driving is not just my privilege, but my right. If you want a self driving car, you're well within your rights to do as I am to drive my self. That's an interesting concern – I suppose we end up, like with most issues of public policy, trying to draw a balance. I imagine it's much like gun control: while most gun owners are going to be responsible, that damage that can be caused by those who aren't means that many jurisdictions prefer to restrict firearm ownership. Moreover, there's a huge scope of privacy issues and increased amount of control being put in the government. I am one of those individuals who is inherently distrusting of government policies that can restrict us under the guise of safety, etc. Sure, and there's good reason for that. The privacy issue is orthogonal and must be set to one side (though it's legitimate). How would you feel about a move to regulate non-autonomous vehicle ownership more closely? Driver licensing could become much more rigorous, for example. Combined with the essential outlawing of non-autonomous vehicles in urban centres (almost inevitable in the long run), that would ideally assuage most safety concerns while still allowing people the freedom to drive.
  - closetnerd 12y ago
    > How would you feel about a move to regulate non-autonomous vehicle ownership more closely? Driver licensing could become much more rigorous, for example. I'm very much in favor of a far more thorough practical driver training programs before being licensed. The issue is less with people not knowing their theory as apposed to not being capable drivers. I think we should model our own driving training programs closer to Finland's for example. In California, at least, the training, the theory, the test itself is a complete joke. It's the definitive example of bureaucratic incompetence. However, I'm not in favor of a rigorous licensing program which simply aims to dissuade one from obtaining a license because of various background checks, fingerprinting, paper work, and encyclopedic knowledge of vague and obscure laws. > Combined with the essential outlawing of non-autonomous vehicles in urban centres (almost inevitable in the long run), that would ideally assuage most safety concerns while still allowing people the freedom to drive. I'm extremely skeptical and, on the whole, against this. This is exactly where lawmakers would find gray enough lines to outlaw humans drivers from the majority of road networks from laws that give the impression that only a handful of metropolitan cities would initially be effected.
forgottenpass 12y ago
I'm a little bit confused about why there's such a negative reaction to this on HN - it seems like a pretty reasonable statement to make, no? "Too dangerous" is sophistry that is rightly derided when used for unquantified fear-mongering elsewhere and this is barely different. I can't wait for the future where I don't have to drive, and safer is an attractive selling point too. But there is a level of risk associated with road travel, a level society has largely deemed acceptable (otherwise speed limits would be lower). Musk putting this in his cross-hairs is a disappointing choice of sales tactic.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  I don't think I agree with this. Road traffic accidents are something like the 10th most common cause of death worldwide. It's clearly a rather dangerous activity. The idea that we have 'deemed acceptable' the risk involved is only the case where the risk cannot be lowered without compromising other goals (e.g. fast travel). In a hypothetical future where autonomous cars are widespread and much safer, the tradeoff changes – it suddenly becomes possible to have both fast and safe travel, with the proviso that humans can't be in change cars. I'm not going to argue that this is a good thing, because I don't know. But it's not fair to say that it's fear-mongering – it's objectively true that cars kill loads of people, and quite possible that non-autonomous vehicles will be banned or at least heavily regulated in the future.
  - closetnerd 12y ago
    > Road traffic accidents are something like the 10th most common cause of death worldwide. It's clearly a rather dangerous activity. I just want to note here that if you look at the same statistics in countries that have implemented better driver training programs, its clear that there is still leaps and bounds of efforts we can take to address the concerns of safety without outlawing the practice completely.
- manicdee 12y ago
  Lower speed limits will not reduce the number of deaths, unless all traffic is reduced to 40km/h or less. Inattentive drivers, confusing road signage, insufficient separation of pedestrians and cars, drivers not following established rules and guidelines: these are the contributing factors which can be addressed to reduce road fatalities with greater reduction of fatalities than simply reducing speed limits. Autonomous cars won't speed for thrills, they won't cut lanes or run red lights. They will be far safer, if more annoying, than most drivers: just like the more conservative human drivers we already have.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Because HN'ers are results based people in general and the results on autonomous cars are currently terrible. Still no solution to driving in the snow, heavy rain, and other poor visibility conditions. Still no solution to weirdo edge cases like a madman running up to your car with a bat (I used to live in a poor neighborood and had this happen once and accelerated away. My dumb smartcar would have stopped to avoid hitting him and let me be victimized). Personally, I'd rather take my chances with the occasional drunk than worry about Google's bugs killing me because some H1B engineer with 4 hours of sleep was forced to write some really junky code that didn't understand some edge case. I look at what Google is able to do practically like Android and am not impressed. Even the best code quality for automation, for example NASA's work on rovers, is wrong occasionally and those things move at a snail's pace with almost nothing around them! The state of AI itself is in shambles. Its healthy to be skeptical of extraordinary claims like Musk's. We just aren't there yet and may never get there considering the fuzzy logic that driving requires. Not to mention the anti-progressive thinking that better cars are the solution to our transportation woes and refusing to accept that we will reach a post-car age in urban centers sooner than later. This is like building a better horse drawn carriage. Sure its technically impressive, but its just not the real solution here.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  the results on autonomous cars are currently terrible Sure, they're not there yet. But in 20 years they'll probably be much better. Might not happen, but it does seem pretty likely that technology will continue improving. Still no solution to weirdo edge cases So that might be one of things that are traded off against the benefits. How often does a car get attacked by a baseball-bat-weilding maniac? Is that risk worth ignoring the improvement in safety? Are there other solutions to the problem? Not to mention the anti-progressive thinking I can't agree with this. It's something common to hear from green-leaning movements around the world – that the car should be retired altogether in favour of public transport. That's true to some extent, but public transport (and it's excellent in many cities around the world) can't completely replace individual vehicles. Regardless of how much it improves, it does not offer point-to-point connections, or the ability to transport goods, for example. In any case, what would be the difference between a city centre populated by electric vehicles (let's say owned by Uber or Tesla or some other company) and one populated by public transport - simply the efficiency? It might be better to think of a city full of electronic cars as being the first implementation of something like personal rapid transport.

cheatsheet 12y ago

The only thing I am concerned with is how secure / exploitable they are from a computer security perspective. I assume there will be some kind of link between the vehicular peripherals to vehicle control and configuration. Then I worry about who is actually controlling the car. I'm open to AI driven cars with redundant intelligent networks, but people are smart too, and some people are not nice people. How do you know that the entire system is functioning as expected? I'm pretty sure that's NP hard.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
Definitely a concern, but I'm not sure what can be done about that – except for "let's develop the technology so that can't happen", even though that seems unlikely.
undersuit 12y ago
> people are smart too, and some people are not nice people. What did you do to these people? Because there are two reasons these people aren't going to be nice to you: you offended them, or you're a random target of violence that we already experience, but now it takes the form of a homicidal self driving car instead of a boy in a movie theater with automatic weapons. Are you advocating we stop pursuing self driving cars just because security is an open ended problem?
- cheatsheet 12y ago
  I expressed my own personal concern. This conversation will not be about equivocating one tragedy to another. That is a red herring.

closetnerd 12y ago

I think the reason you're confused is because you're under the impression that people are arguing against the very obvious practical benefits of having only self driving cars: congestion, safety, etc. This is obvious to everyone. However, there are other human concerns. I personally enjoy driving. I often go on drives where I'm simply exploring, not knowing which turn I might take next. It's my personal belief that driving is not just my privilege, but my right. If you want a self driving car, you're well within your rights to do as I am to drive my self. Moreover, there's a huge scope of privacy issues and increased amount of control being put in the government. I am one of those individuals who is inherently distrusting of government policies that can restrict us under the guise of safety, etc.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
However, there are other human concerns. I personally enjoy driving. I often go on drives where I'm simply exploring, not knowing which turn I might take next. It's my personal belief that driving is not just my privilege, but my right. If you want a self driving car, you're well within your rights to do as I am to drive my self. That's an interesting concern – I suppose we end up, like with most issues of public policy, trying to draw a balance. I imagine it's much like gun control: while most gun owners are going to be responsible, that damage that can be caused by those who aren't means that many jurisdictions prefer to restrict firearm ownership. Moreover, there's a huge scope of privacy issues and increased amount of control being put in the government. I am one of those individuals who is inherently distrusting of government policies that can restrict us under the guise of safety, etc. Sure, and there's good reason for that. The privacy issue is orthogonal and must be set to one side (though it's legitimate). How would you feel about a move to regulate non-autonomous vehicle ownership more closely? Driver licensing could become much more rigorous, for example. Combined with the essential outlawing of non-autonomous vehicles in urban centres (almost inevitable in the long run), that would ideally assuage most safety concerns while still allowing people the freedom to drive.
- closetnerd 12y ago
  > How would you feel about a move to regulate non-autonomous vehicle ownership more closely? Driver licensing could become much more rigorous, for example. I'm very much in favor of a far more thorough practical driver training programs before being licensed. The issue is less with people not knowing their theory as apposed to not being capable drivers. I think we should model our own driving training programs closer to Finland's for example. In California, at least, the training, the theory, the test itself is a complete joke. It's the definitive example of bureaucratic incompetence. However, I'm not in favor of a rigorous licensing program which simply aims to dissuade one from obtaining a license because of various background checks, fingerprinting, paper work, and encyclopedic knowledge of vague and obscure laws. > Combined with the essential outlawing of non-autonomous vehicles in urban centres (almost inevitable in the long run), that would ideally assuage most safety concerns while still allowing people the freedom to drive. I'm extremely skeptical and, on the whole, against this. This is exactly where lawmakers would find gray enough lines to outlaw humans drivers from the majority of road networks from laws that give the impression that only a handful of metropolitan cities would initially be effected.

forgottenpass 12y ago

I'm a little bit confused about why there's such a negative reaction to this on HN - it seems like a pretty reasonable statement to make, no? "Too dangerous" is sophistry that is rightly derided when used for unquantified fear-mongering elsewhere and this is barely different. I can't wait for the future where I don't have to drive, and safer is an attractive selling point too. But there is a level of risk associated with road travel, a level society has largely deemed acceptable (otherwise speed limits would be lower). Musk putting this in his cross-hairs is a disappointing choice of sales tactic.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
I don't think I agree with this. Road traffic accidents are something like the 10th most common cause of death worldwide. It's clearly a rather dangerous activity. The idea that we have 'deemed acceptable' the risk involved is only the case where the risk cannot be lowered without compromising other goals (e.g. fast travel). In a hypothetical future where autonomous cars are widespread and much safer, the tradeoff changes – it suddenly becomes possible to have both fast and safe travel, with the proviso that humans can't be in change cars. I'm not going to argue that this is a good thing, because I don't know. But it's not fair to say that it's fear-mongering – it's objectively true that cars kill loads of people, and quite possible that non-autonomous vehicles will be banned or at least heavily regulated in the future.
- closetnerd 12y ago
  > Road traffic accidents are something like the 10th most common cause of death worldwide. It's clearly a rather dangerous activity. I just want to note here that if you look at the same statistics in countries that have implemented better driver training programs, its clear that there is still leaps and bounds of efforts we can take to address the concerns of safety without outlawing the practice completely.
manicdee 12y ago
Lower speed limits will not reduce the number of deaths, unless all traffic is reduced to 40km/h or less. Inattentive drivers, confusing road signage, insufficient separation of pedestrians and cars, drivers not following established rules and guidelines: these are the contributing factors which can be addressed to reduce road fatalities with greater reduction of fatalities than simply reducing speed limits. Autonomous cars won't speed for thrills, they won't cut lanes or run red lights. They will be far safer, if more annoying, than most drivers: just like the more conservative human drivers we already have.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

Because HN'ers are results based people in general and the results on autonomous cars are currently terrible. Still no solution to driving in the snow, heavy rain, and other poor visibility conditions. Still no solution to weirdo edge cases like a madman running up to your car with a bat (I used to live in a poor neighborood and had this happen once and accelerated away. My dumb smartcar would have stopped to avoid hitting him and let me be victimized). Personally, I'd rather take my chances with the occasional drunk than worry about Google's bugs killing me because some H1B engineer with 4 hours of sleep was forced to write some really junky code that didn't understand some edge case. I look at what Google is able to do practically like Android and am not impressed. Even the best code quality for automation, for example NASA's work on rovers, is wrong occasionally and those things move at a snail's pace with almost nothing around them! The state of AI itself is in shambles. Its healthy to be skeptical of extraordinary claims like Musk's. We just aren't there yet and may never get there considering the fuzzy logic that driving requires. Not to mention the anti-progressive thinking that better cars are the solution to our transportation woes and refusing to accept that we will reach a post-car age in urban centers sooner than later. This is like building a better horse drawn carriage. Sure its technically impressive, but its just not the real solution here.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
the results on autonomous cars are currently terrible Sure, they're not there yet. But in 20 years they'll probably be much better. Might not happen, but it does seem pretty likely that technology will continue improving. Still no solution to weirdo edge cases So that might be one of things that are traded off against the benefits. How often does a car get attacked by a baseball-bat-weilding maniac? Is that risk worth ignoring the improvement in safety? Are there other solutions to the problem? Not to mention the anti-progressive thinking I can't agree with this. It's something common to hear from green-leaning movements around the world – that the car should be retired altogether in favour of public transport. That's true to some extent, but public transport (and it's excellent in many cities around the world) can't completely replace individual vehicles. Regardless of how much it improves, it does not offer point-to-point connections, or the ability to transport goods, for example. In any case, what would be the difference between a city centre populated by electric vehicles (let's say owned by Uber or Tesla or some other company) and one populated by public transport - simply the efficiency? It might be better to think of a city full of electronic cars as being the first implementation of something like personal rapid transport.