341–350 of 511 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary, every plane that takes off does so despite the known chance that it could crash.
No. I am talking about calculated chances, not "someone might decide to crash the plane" chances. If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off.
One in 1.2 million flights crash. This is literally a "known chance".
Planes take off anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Based on what? Human drivers are very bad. We kill over 32,000 people a year (and that's a 60 year low, just a few years ago it was over 40,000). So if self driving cars are just a little better than humans, they will save many lives. If they are a lot better than us, they will save many more.
>> if self driving cars are (...) That's a hypothetical. You say autonomous cars are "poised" to save many lives -not even avoid many deaths, actively "save". That's very strong language to use based on an "if" that nobody yet knows the answer to with any certainty. That is, unless you are privy to some information that the rest of us are not? Are you? What is it that you base your assertion on? Do you base it on any…
There are already videos of assisted-driving cars avoiding accidents which likely would have been fatal. We already know they can potentially save lives. It's something we already accept for flying. Autopilot in planes has resulted in deaths of crew and passengers. So we have precedent in at least one mode of transportation.
Drivers get T-boned or rear end other people all the time. Those are two scenarios where driver-assist could have applied the brakes and actively saving lives for drivers inattentiveness. You'll also find no shortage of Liveleak clips of people being killed by drivers who failed to see them and brake in time. Many being scenarios that Google's self-driving cars have the technology to avoid.
I mean I understand Tesla has to make a statement here and I understand they want to ensure everyone that it's not really their fault but to title a post "A Tragic Loss" and then spend the majority of the post discussing all of your car's safety features and how it wasn't your fault just seems tone deaf and distasteful to me. Maybe they had to do it for legal reasons I don't know (I'm certainly not a lawyer) and I'd…
Sure, if all the lawyers will promise not to take some statement out of context and sue them over that.. As long as such lawyers exist and that's the way the legal system works this is what can be expected out of statements from companies..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just about Tesla though. They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general. Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. So from a utilitarian perspective, it's probably justified to take extraordinary measures to make sure reactionary media and public whim doesn't kill it off, however uncomfortable that might seem in…
> It's not just about Tesla though. > They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general. They could have done that in two separate posts. This was tone deaf at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So personally, I find your appeal to emotion and thinly veiled "what about the children" shtick disgusting and immoral. How do you counter a utilitarian argument without humanizing the situation? If my friend or loved one were killed by an ill-considered and poorly-implemented automated driving algorithm, no amount of statistics would convince me that the tradeoff was worth it. Who bears responsibility in that case…
> How do you counter a utilitarian argument without humanizing the situation? Have you considered that perhaps there is no argument to be countered? That your entire foundation of "humanizing" the situation is foolish and off base? Alternatively, you yourself blithely dismissed the fact that your "humanizing" easily works both ways, in fact more easily works the other way: many of us have had friends or loved ones ki…
You're also forgetting that the dream of safe and ubiquitous self-driving cars is still unproven and far in the future. What we're actually dealing with on the ground is a dangerous, nascent, and hype-driven technology that relies on a human fallback and has the power to kill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just about Tesla though. They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general. Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. So from a utilitarian perspective, it's probably justified to take extraordinary measures to make sure reactionary media and public whim doesn't kill it off, however uncomfortable that might seem in…
I can already hear a lot of people that I know: "See! I told you them automagic cars were the devil!" I personally can't wait for fully self-driving cars, but it's going to be a big PR battle in the US
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I am talking about calculated chances, not "someone might decide to crash the plane" chances. If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off.
>> If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off. There is no component of any machine that is 100% guaranteed to not fail under any circumstances. What the bloody hell are you talking about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Based on what? Human drivers are very bad. We kill over 32,000 people a year (and that's a 60 year low, just a few years ago it was over 40,000). So if self driving cars are just a little better than humans, they will save many lives. If they are a lot better than us, they will save many more.
>> if self driving cars are (...) That's a hypothetical. You say autonomous cars are "poised" to save many lives -not even avoid many deaths, actively "save". That's very strong language to use based on an "if" that nobody yet knows the answer to with any certainty. That is, unless you are privy to some information that the rest of us are not? Are you? What is it that you base your assertion on? Do you base it on any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? Your attempt at "humanizing" the situation is merely being dismissive of the values of others' lives. Everyone who dies is special and important to someone. To wring your hands and rail against utilitarianism is to try and apply tribalism to moral reasoning. Because this person matters more TO YO…
> Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? To me, the key factor is blame. Who do we fault in an accident? We can't imprison an algorithm or put it in jail. But we can implicate a careless driver. A loved one should not have to die because a truck happened to be the right shade of white — not without much discussion and the possibility…
An algorithm cannot BE "careless", in the legal sense of the word. You are comparing apples and oranges. Carelessness (negligence) is a different problem than a design flaw.
An algorithm may be flawed, in which case blame lies with the companies involved in creating it and putting it in peoples' hands. Similarly, any mechanical component of a vehicle can be flawed -- and many can cause an accident if they fail. The companies responsible are legally liable already.
> In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit
Cars. Airplanes. Vaccines. All of these benefit the majority at the expense of a few.
The idea that there is no liability here is absolute and utter NONSENSE. Minimally, Tesla can be sued for the flaw in their product and the harm it caused.
The top comment in another comment thread, which has been "duped"[0] pointed out how marking a feature in cars as "beta" is irresponsible. What's beyond the pale IMO is that when auto-pilot was first demonstrated (at the unveil event) - "hands on the wheel" was not part of the story. Journalists and (what appeared to be) Tesla employees were using the feature without hands on the wheel. It looked like Tesla cashing-i…
> hey do the check frequency is low. why can't it be high?! Because that makes it less useful. I am a Tesla owner. I am an adult capable of monitoring the car and taking control when autopilot gets confused. My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control. > One death is too many. I am sick and tired o…