Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#111

Post by Consultant32452 »

afarrell wrote: post #60
toomuchtodo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the moment, there is no other option other than human driving cars. Once automated cars are a realistic option, insurance companies can properly price insurance for human drivers much higher (comparatively speaking). A self-driving car should have almost 0 risk, meaning the vast majority of cars (if self driving) would carry no risk to the insurer.

yes, but that doesn't explain why the underlying risk of insuring human drivers would rise. Nor does it explain why, since the underlying risk is the same, Progressive wouldn't offer lower rates than Geico's.

I suspect that the risk would actually lower for the remaining human drivers as the AI vehicles are probably going to be better at predicting and dodging our stupid mistakes, resulting in fewer accidents even if we don't improve our driving abilities.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#112

Post by unclebucknasty »

monochromatic wrote: post #63
unclebucknasty wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the bigger question is WRT the ongoing quest to marginalize human beings. Once we automate everything, then what?

> then what? Whatever we want.

Right. And, this is generally taken to mean that we--now freed of life's pesky minutiae (such as work), which is handled via automation--will all frolic in meadows, wearing fig leaves and pursuing our inner potential. We will subsist off of a basic income and life will simply be as intended, without the need for labor or physical movement for that matter.

And, I wonder what it is in human nature or recent history that makes so many believe that this will be even remotely close to how things actually unfold. That property rights will somehow cease to exist or that those who control the various automata won't simply accrete more economic power unto themselves, relying on ever fewer humans with whom to share that power. Yet, somehow, they will share the spoils such that the masses of unnecessary humans may live comfortably without expending the slightest effort.

It need not be a full-on sci-fi style dystopic future to be problematic. We are already seeing degrees of the problem. On our relentless quest to automate humans into obsolescence, seems that we should occasionally pause to consider the consequences in the context of what we know to be true of human nature and history.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#113

Post by unclebucknasty »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #108
unclebucknasty wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the bigger question is WRT the ongoing quest to marginalize human beings. Once we automate everything, then what?

Peace and prosperity, I hope.

I think "hope" is the keyword there and, unfortunately, I don't think there's evidence to warrant much of it. See my reply to your sibling.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#114

Post by bdavisx »

kobayashi wrote: post #72
rdtsc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books. To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a poi…

That's already happening. There are also some laws/policies which state that insurance premiums won't be increased for anyone who chooses to abstain from such a tracking program, but we'll see how long that lasts.

You don't have to raise the rates of someone who doesn't use the tracking; you simply lower the rates of someone who does - that's how the current tracking systems work, several insurance companies already have them.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#115

Post by TeMPOraL »

kagamine wrote: post #75
Animats wrote: post #70

For a sense of how this is going, you can read the California DMV's collection of autonomous vehicle accident reports.[1] 9 from Google, one from Delphi. Almost all the Google ones are a Google vehicle being rear-ended by another car at slow speed. Typical situation: Google AV turning right on red after a full stop. AV advances enough to get a good sensor view of cross traffic, detects cross traffic, and stops. Follo…

Driving behavior and patterns are important for safety too, when you assume that it's not the google AV's fault that it gets rear-ended you may be wrong. If a human driver sees more than the AV (has a bigger brain, more experience) and is able to better asses a situation, the human might not see why the AV is stopping, having assessed correctly that the way is clear. It is the AV's fault for not being smart enough, a…

The truth is that people aren't all "idiots who should never, ever have been allowed behind the wheel". Driving is hard - ironically, harder than most drivers realize. It's been proven time and again that we absolutely suck at it. And the "normal driving standards and patterns" is a big part of the problem - our natural tendency to ignore the abstract rules and go with our gut is what kills people. It's hard to really blame a person for doing bad at a task that's not well-suited for their brain architecture. But it means we should leave driving to machines that are better at it, the very moment such machines become available.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#116

Post by roganartu »

lsc wrote: post #94
gambiting wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've heard that before. It's crazy to me. The most basic insurance in EU is required to cover up to 5 million euro against damages to people and 3 million against damage to property. How US can only require $35k liability cover is beyond me. Does that not mean that in pretty much any accident you have to pay extra out of your own pocket? (that "basic" insurance costs me $150 for the whole year and allows me to…

>How US can only require $35k liability cover is beyond me. Does that not mean that in pretty much any accident you have to pay extra out of your own pocket? Generally speaking, only poor people carry the minimum liability insurance. Everyone else carries limits closer to yours, at least for damage to people; I mean, doing 3 million in damage to a human, I can see that. Doing that much damage to property would be...…

Australia has a mandatory level of insurance called Compulsory Third-Party insurance or CTP. It is required by law for all registered motor vehicles in all states and typically covers in the order of $20m or so of third-party medical expenses and/or compensation related to an injury sustained in an accident. Property damage is not covered.

As for relative price typically one would be looking at around $300-600 per year, depending on age, driving history, type of car etc. Granted with our universal health care I suspect that our average out-of-pocket medical expenses for injuries from car accidents are lower than the US.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#117

Post by DanBC »

nostromo wrote: post #8

One thing I haven't heard much about is how humans and AI drivers will interact. If we all assume that AI cars are going to be very conservative and very competent drivers, will people take advantage of that? Will human drivers become even bigger assholes that cut off AI drivers at every possibility, knowing that an AI will not hit them? Why wait in a big line for an exit, when you know an AI car will always let you…

AI Cars are going to have a lot of cameras and always-on recording. Aggressive driving would risk being reported to law enforcement.

> Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car.

That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#118

Post by shpx »

woofyman wrote: post #15
jjoonathan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people will take advantage of AI drivers, but everything will be recorded and I'm sure the autonomous car companies can figure out how to put those recordings to use. Name&shame, sell the info to insurance companies, push to make it an automatic ticket, etc. After a shakedown period a more or less reasonable compromise will surely emerge.

I don't want to live in a society where every car becomes a tool of law enforcement.

Some lady did a hit and run, and her new Ford called the police [0]. There are surveillance cameras in the park by my house. I've given up, fighting this is like trying to stop a tsunami.

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/07/florida-wo...

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#119

Post by throwaway7767 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #109
throwaway7767 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's self driving cars only drive on roads that have been comprehensively mapped by google at great expense. You couldn't just take it to a new country and expect it to work. So yeah, there's a very long way to go until self-driving cars are ready to replace human drivers.

I believe it'll happen quicker than you think. Even if we can't move beyond having to create and maintain detailed road maps, once the concept has been proven to work, you can expect many companies simultaneously jumping to map their local regions. That's one thing capitalism is really good at - distributed, simultaneous deployment of solutions that have money-making potential.

I hope you're right. I could see that happening in warmer climates. But what about when landmarks and points of reference are covered in snow? GPS is not accurate enough to be used as a sole reference, you need a visual/LIDAR reference to back it up.

The system will have to work in 100% of circumstances before laws will be changed to allow for driverless cars. I could see that happening in 20 years, but I really doubt it'll be on the streets in 5 years like Elon Musk and others have suggested.

Post reply on HN