Thread

1. phoronixrly · 1790173764 · focus · HN ↗

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

   1. password54321 · 1790174082 · focus · HN ↗

      >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.

      1. jmiskovic · 1790176178 · focus · 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.