Hacker News Reader

Comment by password54321 | Hacker News Reader

>This goes to show that any car, be it internal combustion, electric, manually operated or self-driving is still a car, and thus is still capable of inflicting death (among other negatives).

No shit.

>The difference is still just in the frequency of deaths (and with self-driving this is still under debate).

No, the difference is not just frequency. It is, what is the probability I would have made the same mistake. Some of these cases would very unlikely have happened by a (sober) person. Which demonstrates, that we are still dealing with incredibly jagged intelligence.

View on HN

The GP is right, the correct mental model is just frequency of accidents. There's a high chance the accident might not be caused by you, it could be that you're a well behaved pedestrian and you still get hit. Your own cognitive abilities and skills matter, but only so much.

Would you rather that the other driver is a person or an algorithm? What if automated driving causes few % less accidents than humans but there's no liability or accountability when it happens? What if algorithms cause more accidents but far less fatal ones? When is it the best time to deploy them at scale, to enable rapid improvements and a significantly safer roads one year down the road? Difficult questions.

Regardless, self-driving software can't make mistakes. Not one.

Saying that it's better than a human driver is not adequate. I think as a a society we (begrudgingly) make allowances for human error. There is zero solace for a death at the hands of an algorithm.

>>I think as a a society we (begrudgingly) make allowances for human error. There is zero solace for a death at the hands of an algorithm.

There is zero solace for a death caused by senseless drivers either. With machines and algorithms you can at least hope they would improve in the future. Humans won't. There will always be a small % of terrible ones.

Imo we should allow (and then enforce) self driving even if machines are still worse than humans (they aren't) because that's the only path we have and the sooner we start walking it the better.

> even if machines are still worse than humans (they aren't)

As I said this is still a subject of research. This statement has a source of 'trust me bro'.

> Imo we should allow (and then enforce) self driving even if machines are still worse than humans

How about we do that after a drastic reduction of car use? How about we do that after car manufacturers start taking responsibility about road deaths caused by their 'self-driving' software, and hardware corner cuts?

>>How about we do that after a drastic reduction of car use? How about we do that after car manufacturers start taking responsibility about road deaths caused by their 'self-driving' software, and hardware corner cuts?

I am all for that. Add to that actual enforcement and making reckless driving criminal offence so we can catch the terrible drivers before they kill anyone. That won't happen though because politics. Self-driving just might.

You are wrong, self-driving software can make mistakes. It is the software companies coding it that refuse to shoulder the responsibility, because they still have no idea how reliable their tech is. Otherwise they would have the appropriate insurance, like any company that trades in any dangerous business. Aircraft manufacturers still make planes (with autopilot!) despite crashes, chemical manufacturers still deal with explosive and poisonous materials, etc... Only those software companies want to be fully held irresponsible of what happens. They are dishonest.

    Otherwise they would have the appropriate insurance, like any company that trades in any dangerous business.

What is "appropriate insurance"?

As far as I'm aware, virtually every state with an AV pilot program requires insurance (either commercial or self-insured, as typical for commercial vehicles) in order to be permitted. Several major markets (e.g. California) also require an additional bond to cover issues and have a gradual expansion process to better understand unknown risks.

Yes, they are dishonest and only loyal to stakeholders, that's capitalism 101. The other examples you mentioned are around for more time and they have safety regulations, inspections and fines. Another thing that changed is media landscape. Tesla can get caught of altering the logs in cases of autopilot crash and it just gets buried in news instead of being brought up and repeated over and over each time their stock is discussed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com