Apparently GM thinks killing a pedestrian every 10 million miles is acceptable?
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
128 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59665 readers
3831 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
GM saved like $2 on an ignition switch and killed 13 people. They knew about the issue for years. So yeah, GM doesn't care if a few people have to die in order to turn a profit
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/business/13-deaths-untold-heartache-from-gm-defect.html
What's acceptable?
Every 50 million? 100 million?
It will never be perfect, and there will never be no deaths at all, so if there is no acceptable limit you may as well ban self driving car research right now.
The rate of pedestrians killed in 2021 was approximately 1 in every 25,000,000 miles driven manually (8000 deaths and 203 billion miles travelled collectively. Should that be the minimum target?
load more comments
(10 replies)
It would be interesting to see what the actual stats are for pedestrian deaths vs miles driven for non autonomous cars. I'm willing to bet autonomous cars will ultimately be safer, but it will take time to get to that point.
Edit: Apparently, according to the transportation safety in the US article on Wikipedia, the average is 1.25 pedestrians killed per 100 million miles driven.
That page doesn't exclude commercial road vehicles or interstates, so the apples to apples comparison may be much closer to the autonomous rate. A 700 mile/day truck cruising I-40 through the desert is going to skew the data as safer while I bet a casual city driver will be an order of magnitude more dangerous. Maybe the best would be stacking it against taxi and other ride-hail drivers
Edit: Cruise didn't even cause the incident. A human-driven car hit the pedestrian into the Cruise. This sky-is-falling reaction was started by a human doing worse.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But they recalling the vehicles so clearly not.
Unless you're suggesting that the software update is too make the cars more efficient at killing pedestrians?
load more comments
(3 replies)
No they don’t which is why they suspended all vehicles pending a software update.
Also, how does this compare to human drivers?
The best thing about this is that now the problem has been identified the software can be fixed and this particular problem won’t happen again. If a human makes this mistake you can’t push an update to fix all human drivers.
What's that rate for human drivers?
According to these numbers 1 death in 73 million miles. Which is much better than I thought.
Which includes trucks hauling through unpopulated areas
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?
Just the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks, internet stranger!
load more comments
(19 replies)
Not just GM, if you tried ro question the safety of these cars on even Lemmy before these revelations came out you would get brigaded by people claiming they were safer than humans statistically and thats all they needed to be in order to be acceptable.
This incident started with a human driving their car into a pedestrian. It's not exactly a smoking gun
This is the best summary I could come up with:
General Motors’ Cruise autonomous vehicle unit is recalling all 950 of its cars to update software after one of them dragged a pedestrian to the side of a San Francisco street in early October and a subsequent ban by California regulators.
The company said in documents posted by US safety regulators on Wednesday that with the updated software, Cruise vehicles will remain stationary should a similar incident occur in the future.
The 2 October crash prompted Cruise to suspend driverless operations nationwide after California regulators found that its cars posed a danger to public safety.
The state’s department of motor vehicles revoked the license for Cruise, which was transporting passengers without human drivers throughout San Francisco.
In a statement on Wednesday, the GM unit said that it did the recall even though it determined that a similar crash with a risk of serious injury could happen again every 10m to 100m miles without the update.
“As our software continues to improve, it is likely we will file additional recalls to inform both NHTSA and the public of updates to enhance safety across our fleet.”
The original article contains 712 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Instead of "what number of deaths is acceptable?" Ask, "who is responsible?"
When a human driver in control of a car hits a pedestrian, the human is responsible, not the car.
Who is responsible when a computer driven car hits a pedestrian? Also, whose insurance pays the bill?
view more: next ›