Just to be clear, I do think the obvious solution to terrible things like this is vastly expanded public transit so that people don’t have to rely on cars to get everywhere, not overhyped technology and driving aids that are still only marginally better than the driver. I just thought the article was interesting.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    It’s all in how you combine the numbers, and yes we need a lot more progress, but …. When was the last time an ai caused a collision because it was texting? How often does a self driving vehicle threaten or harm others with road rage?

    I do t know what the numbers are but human driving sets a very low bar so it’s easy to believe even today’s inadequate self-driving is safer

    • andyburke@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      This is the same anecdotal appeal we get over and over while AI cars drive into firetrucks and trees in ways even the most basic licensed driver would not. Then we are told these are safer because people text or become distracted. I am over this garbage. Get real numbers and find a way to do it that doesn’t put me and my family at risk.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 minutes ago

        I always said this will be the problem. Self-driving cars will never be perfect. They’ll always have different failure modes than human drivers. So at what point is increased safety worth the trade off of new ways to die. Are we there yet?

        At what point is it acceptable to the rest of us? Humans will always prefer the risk they know over the one they don’t, even when it’s objectively wrong