Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksk | Hacker News Reader

>Through adoption of autonomous vehicles, many predict we will drastically cut the number of fatalities.

Who are these many people, and why should we believe their predictions?

> We’ve proven to be perennially distracted, we have terrible reaction times, we have extremely narrow vision, we panic in situations instead of remaining calm, etc. and yes, these faults do lead to the deaths of children.

We've also proven that all software has bugs, and developers keep introducing new bugs in every single release. There is no reason to think that self-driving car software will be any different. Whats worse is that when software is updated, these bugs will now be pushed out to tens of thousands of cars - instantly.

Bit much to call someones position nonsense when they're just skeptical of obvious stuff :)

View on HN

I was referring the absurdity of empathizing with drivers who kill people while texting, drunk, etc. (hence the quotation). What part of that statement do you agree with?

But I’ll go further and double down and say the entire post is nonsense. Why? Because the author’s skepticism doesn’t extend to the human factor. The position is not an accurate representation of the facts i.e what causes accidents (humans) and the known data around AVs today. If AV risk is so obvious as you claim then why does the enormous amount of data show that AVs are involved in the less accidents and lead to less fatalities than cars operated by humans on a mile per mile basis? And how is the negligent human driver not obvious as a source of automobile fatalities? The notion that we are safe because we can read humans is not substantiated by anything. Maybe you believe this number of fatalities is acceptable or the best we can do but I certainly don’t. There will be flaws in autonomous vehicles, no doubt. But will there be a net reduction in automobile related fatalities as a result? Like anyone else, I can’t predict the future. But to paint a rosy picture about how our ability to read other drivers is somehow safer relative to AVs is nonsense. It just is. The data doesn’t support this argument. And separately, if we’re talking about will happen in the future, the notion that humans will ultimately prevail over AVs because for safety reasons seems preposterous. We can debate the “when” in terms of AVs but debating the “if” seems pretty out of touch with the way society has progressed with respect to our willingness to depend on technology.

>Because the author’s skepticism doesn’t extend to the human factor.

And your over-enthusiasm for AV doesn't extend to the human factor. We all have our own blinders ;)

>The notion that we are safe because we can read humans is not substantiated by anything.

That is your own misinterpretation. I did not read the comment that way.

>If AV risk is so obvious as you claim then why does the enormous amount of data show that AVs are involved in the less accidents and lead to less fatalities than cars operated by humans on a mile per mile basis?

What you mean when you say AV, is actually "AV + Human". We're running controlled experiments, limiting the unknowns, and we're mandating a human be present - because the current AV technology sucks.

> We can debate the “when” in terms of AVs but debating the “if” seems pretty out of touch with the way society has progressed with respect to our willingness to depend on technology.

People used to say that about flying cars 40 years ago.

A future where AVs exist that can replace human drivers is a future where so many requirements and drivers for personal mobility have changed as well: due to the possibility of replacing a human performing a highly complex task in situ.

That future may not even want or need cars.

The other, more realistic future is one where human-level AVs are always just out of reach. Where causes of accidents are just as intransparent as with human drivers, we're all a little bit safer but a patch can cause catastrophic divergent behavior due to the innate non-linearity of the problem.

That future may not want or need cars either but it may not even be considered.

> The other, more realistic future is one where human-level AVs are always just out of reach.

That sounds pretty unlikely to me. "just out of reach" is a very narrow band, and to be stuck there despite decades of improvements would be pretty strange. I think there are only two likely outcomes for the next 50 to 100 years: either we don't even get particularly close, or we'll slowly but surely surpass the median human driver.

>That future may not even want or need cars.

Agreed, 100%. Instead of AV, we could focus on remote presence and other tech to make cars and/or daily commute unnecessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com