this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
128 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59666 readers
3852 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's that rate for human drivers?
Around 1 per 100 million miles.
In all weather conditions. Autonomous vehicles only drive in optimal conditions, humans have to suffer whatever nature throws at us.
The irony here is that the accident occurred because a human driver hit this pedestrian first. So it ain’t like us humans have a clean conscience here…
It's a trolley problem of sorts. Currently it seems that we have higher standards for AI than humans. I bet that even if AI was twice as good driver, we'd still hate to hear about it causing accidents. I'm not sure why that is. I'm wondering if it has something to do with the fact, that there's really not anyone to blame and that doesn't fit with our morals.
Because corporations running AI means the first time actual human thought enters the picture is when the dividend check gets deposited.
And shareholder profits, sacred in law and the market, will push safety standards based on cost, not fewest deaths.
I want to believe you, but source please?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-estimates-2022#:~:text=The%20National%20Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,42%2C939%20fatalities%20reported%20for%202021.
Just the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks, internet stranger!
According to these numbers 1 death in 73 million miles. Which is much better than I thought.
Which includes trucks hauling through unpopulated areas
What's the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it's more than zero.
That's equally ridiculous to say. Self driving cars just need to be better than people to be worth it, they just currently are not better than people.
It's ridiculous to think that cars shouldn't be killing people? Well smack my ass and call me an extremist.
Yes, it's ridiculous to say that if self driving cars kill fewer people than human driven cars but still more than zero that we should not use them. That's like saying "why use seatbelts, they're not 100% effective."
That's not what I said though.
Are you trying to be this much of an idiot?
That's the implications of the logic you're using.
I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble with logic but it's not complicated. Zero people should be killed by cars, therefore anything that gets us closer to that ideal number is a good thing.
I think we have different meanings of the word "should".
Are you calling for a ban on human driven cars? They killed more than zero people yesterday! If you aren't, you've accepted a human-driven vehicular homicide rate above zero.
It is more than zero. Anything that beats humans is a win. Getting to zero is unrealistic. Nothing has a zero risk of death.
Correct, that's exactly what I'm saying. Zero is the acceptable number, so anything that gets us closer to that is good.
You're shifting goal posts.
Acceptable is different than ideal.
Only if you want it to be.
That's true. But then you run into the issue of "The perfect being the enemy of the good."
Ok ya pedantic fuck. I edited my comment just for you. I know English is hard to understand.
But now you're misusing "acceptable".
We would need to get to the other side of acceptable for widespread use of autos (self driving vehicles). It's not an unachievable goal you always try to get closer to. That word is your previously used "ideal". Which its seems now is what you meant with your original comment, instead of the "acceptable" you actually used.
It's not just pedantic. I'm not the only one who thought you said something you apparently now didn't mean, because you used words you apparently don't understand. The words you use are vital to your being understood.
You could just humbly admit your original mistake in language, and nobody would give you a hard time.
I'm misusing "acceptable" because you think I mean something that I didn't mean? Move along then.
Yes! Exactly! And based on the vote counts I'm seeing 2/3 people misunderstood you. And when one is trying to explain something to another, if the other doesn't understand, it can logically only be the fault of the person explaining.