Hacker News Reader

Comment by crankylinuxuser | Hacker News Reader

Yes.

Because when the autonomous systems are trained on how to handle adverse conditions, its the sum of the knowledge of all machines that build how to handle these conditions. Whereas each human has to learn it individually. And given how bad people drive even with rainstorms, I'd put the money on the computers.

And frankly, we can also discuss if "driving in rain/sleet on frozen mountain pass" is even a good idea. Because computers can also provide data like "Estimated chance of wreck is X%", and decisions can be made using that.

Tl;Dr. One machine learns and can share with all nearly instantaneously. 1 human learns and that's it.

View on HN

> And given how bad people drive even with rainstorms, I'd put the money on the computers.

In the long term, yes, definitely. And I am looking forward to the day.

But it is going to be a while, and it is going to be a while longer until all the politicians and insurance companies are convinced of that, too.

I can easily see insurance companies being convinced of that a lot sooner. Why, you might ask?

An "auto" will have less incidence of wrecks and drive provably safer. And the "auto" will also record everything as proof, so if there is a wreck involved, it's a simple "download and review the footage". Guilt is now easy to prove as well as trivial to exonerate.

And all of those things will bring the cost of insurance down for the insurance companies. And many of them will then lower their rates appropriately given very high standard of proof they provide.

After all, insurance is heavily based in the sciences and mathematics. If they weren't, insurance companies wouldn't last very long at all.

Now, I have no clue on how to get politicians to understand science. I'm not sure if that's even possible, as science can easily go against an ideology - and thusly their political stance.

I think that your thinking is too shortsighted. Autonomous driving, if it's going to be as rosy as you and I both think, is going to be what kills much of the auto insurance industry. What we have now are more serious and more frequent accidents compared to the ideal future, yielding higher premiums. Higher premiums --> higher cashflow --> higher profitability for insurance companies. Sure, they want to see fewer accidents - but if it's to an extreme to the point where competitive forces dramatically bring premiums down, the insurance business won't be so great. I see insurance companies lobbying very strongly against autonomous driving in the near future.

Interesting thought.

To be honest, once autonomous driving systems become so good they are provably and reliably better than humans, insurance companies will probably charge a premium for the privilege of driving your car yourself.

I am just not sure when autopilots will become that good. OTOH, I did not expect to see self-driving cars arrive during my lifetime, and now it looks very strongly like I will. ;-)

> Now, I have no clue on how to get politicians to understand science.

Given the kind of political influence car manufactures have (at least here in Germany), I think that will not be too much of a problem once the demand is there.

In that case program to accept loss of vehicle/loss of cargo as the failure mode if recovery is not possible, assuming there is no other road directly beneath it which it would land on.

I couldn't agree more

Reply on news.ycombinator.com