Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by yazaddaruvala | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

yazaddaruvala

> [2015] In California alone, 431 people died in accidents involving young drivers[0]

By your logic we should also stop allowing 15-20 year olds to learn how to drive in public.

So far the robots have done less damage.

[0] https://www.inlandempirelawyers.com/blog/young-driver-accide...

View on HN

In Europe they can't drive normal cars before 18. They will be able to to so after 17 if accompanied by an adult and will be subject to a probation period of 2 years after taking the test. Also speed "limitiers" will be required in all new vehicles after 2024. Most of these would probably be audible nags, like the one that beeps if one drives without the seatbelt.

https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-com...

Absolutely insane that your society allows children to experiment on unwitting people without consent.

What are you talking about?

You have untrained people using multi-ton motorized equipment on streets where people cross. And you don't even ask them if they'd be okay with this experiment. At least a bit unethical.

They have to take a test after training. Also a two year probation with zero tolerance on drunk driving and other offenses.

Should we give the robots the same test, if they pass they get the drivers license?

Seems like a low bar to me - for both robots and humans. We should instead raise the standards even higher for both!

I don't see why we wouldn't make a robotaxis pass driving exams. Also, I don't see how would this help. Most accidents are caused by licensed drivers

> Most accidents are caused by licensed drivers

Exactly, the point I’ve been trying to emphasize is:

The bar to become a driver in California is really LOW. We should push for the robots to be even better, but given the low bar for humans, I don’t see a good reason to stop them from training on public roads.

So? No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people. Having those kids on the road is a necessary evil. Having those dumb machines on the road is not. AI should be trained safely off the roads or not at all. If those companies don't know how then that's their problem, not ours.

Why is it necessary to train kids on the road in real driving conditions but not necessary to train AI on the road in real driving conditions? These AIs have probably hundreds of thousands of hours of incident-free driving in simulation. Kids aren't even required to do a single hour in a simulator before they're allowed on the roads.

> No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people

1. To my knowledge there has been only one death by a robot car. It was Uber’s and that program has been shut down for many reasons.

2. Given robot cars already have a higher bar for safety (ie fewer deaths, injuries, etc) than 15 year olds, wouldn’t the more prudent use of time/energy be to invest more into robot cars while changing policy so driving becomes (at minimum) 18+?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com