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

Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#21

Post by takeda »

lanevorockz wrote: post #13
thinkmoore wrote: post #12

While I agree some of the early arguments are a bit weak, I liked the author's discussion of the parallels to medical research---I think it gets across why some (including myself) think its worth approaching this exciting new technology with a slightly less cavalier attitude: In developing cancer drugs that could save millions of lives—just like robot cars are promised to do—we understand we can’t ignore problems in…

By Cavalier atitude you mean very slowly while thousands of people die every year.

You know very well what he meant.

Just because this technology MAY[1] save lives in the future doesn't mean you can sacrifice others for greater good.

This is also the reason why we don't allow for experimenting on humans in the medical field.

[1] This is something that while I am fan of Tesla I'm still convinced Google is doing this properly i.e. build autonomous system from the scratch. What Tesla offers is an autonomous system that is good enough to make driver confident about it and pay less attention (e.g. watching Harry Potter movie while driving), but not fool proof that it would prevent accidents that regular driver could easily avoid.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#22

Post by placeybordeaux »

seangrant wrote: post #5
fennecfoxen wrote: post #3

Article argues, "autopilot could let people who are blind and disabled drive now, where they couldn't drive before. but they could never get killed in a car accident while driving before, so this is ethically questionable." Article's logic is dumber than a sack of hair.

Summed up by the author's question "Would we really accept higher statistical safety, if that came with new risks and accident types that we could easily avoid today?" Who would say no to this?

If you frame it entirely as safety most people will say that they want everyone else to use a driverless car, but they will keep on driving themselves, because everyone thinks they are a great driver. The reason why people will choose to use driverless cars will most likely be convenience, safety will just be a nice additional win.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#23

Post by Draiken »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #8
fennecfoxen wrote: post #3

Article argues, "autopilot could let people who are blind and disabled drive now, where they couldn't drive before. but they could never get killed in a car accident while driving before, so this is ethically questionable." Article's logic is dumber than a sack of hair.

The article is just responding to the level of intelligence of arguments saying we should all soon stop driving and have automated driving everywhere. I am all for self driving cars, but the common statistical argument (lower number of deaths than humans) for them is just silly for a number of reasons.

Why is that a bad argument? It's a pragmatic approach which I believe to be A LOT BETTER than the status quo.

Unfortunately people prefer the current way of implementing things: pretend to make everyone happy because people can't think 5 seconds ahead of time or even imagine that their actions affect others.

It's so easy to sell everything for the small, immediate benefits while ignoring the bigger picture.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#24

Post by saulrh »

whack wrote: post #16
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is just responding to the level of intelligence of arguments saying we should all soon stop driving and have automated driving everywhere. I am all for self driving cars, but the common statistical argument (lower number of deaths than humans) for them is just silly for a number of reasons.

Such as?

Until we figure out immortality, everybody that is born will die. The most effective strategy currently available for preventing deaths, then, is to put an immediate moratorium on births, capping the future total number of deaths at the current world population.

If you're going to go the utilitarian route, you need a more complex utility function. Otherwise you end up with really weird badness.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#25

Post by takeda »

hartator wrote: post #17

I am bullish both on Autopilot and Tesla. That said, I don't think lying about numbers is a good thing. They weren't any death on Tesla model S until now. So, saying using Autopilot is still safer than driving 'manually' is a lie. Tesla was comparing itself to the average not so good US average car. I think it is a bit of a stretch. I will still use it though.

Keep in mind that autopilot is relatively young feature. This feature is a double edged sword, it helps driver that pays attention, but at the same it allows driver to be distracted.

The distraction is especially bad since most of the time the feature works well so with time it makes you less careful.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#26

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #3

Article argues, "autopilot could let people who are blind and disabled drive now, where they couldn't drive before. but they could never get killed in a car accident while driving before, so this is ethically questionable." Article's logic is dumber than a sack of hair.

The article is arguing for inaction in the Trolley Problem [1]. In short: You have a choice between saving five people and letting one other person die, or doing nothing and letting five people die.

Which is a controversial position, but not stupid exactly. I would call it misguided, and certainly not a very utilitarian position. And given the options I personally would vote for the utilitarian answer: Save five people even if the one who dies wasn't otherwise threatened.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#27

Post by andrei_says_ »

What a tragic misnaming of a feature. I see this over and over again, people expect the "autopilot" to drive the car for them.

Naming it something like "cruise-assist" or similar would remove so much confusion and expectation.

It's a wonderful car, with great features and one terrible UX flaw in labeling a core feature.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#28

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #20

I couldn't get through most of the article because the premise was so weak. Specifically, I couldn't get over the "different people will die" argument - the implication being that the status quo is somehow more fair. This ignores the fact that many collision-related fatalities are not the drivers or in any way at fault. 2014 stats[0] show that 38% of fatalities in car accidents were not drivers. It's reasonable to as…

The "different people will die" argument has been debated for decades in the philosophical question called the "Trolley Problem." [1]

The short answer is that yes, it's generally agreed to make the active choice to save more people, even if it means different people die.

Air bags kill people sometimes in accidents where they likely wouldn't have died, but we put up with the risk because overall we're more likely to live through a serious accident. Air bags are fired off because a computer reading a sensor decides that they're needed. It's a very close analog situation, and yet the people making the moral argument against them have been downvoted to oblivion, and air bags are now mandatory.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#29

Post by marcosdumay »

seangrant wrote: post #5
fennecfoxen wrote: post #3

Article argues, "autopilot could let people who are blind and disabled drive now, where they couldn't drive before. but they could never get killed in a car accident while driving before, so this is ethically questionable." Article's logic is dumber than a sack of hair.

Summed up by the author's question "Would we really accept higher statistical safety, if that came with new risks and accident types that we could easily avoid today?" Who would say no to this?

Lots of people don't fly because they are afraid of planes, for example.

Expect people to be highly resistant to that change at the beginning.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#30

Post by ergothus »

thinkmoore wrote: post #12

While I agree some of the early arguments are a bit weak, I liked the author's discussion of the parallels to medical research---I think it gets across why some (including myself) think its worth approaching this exciting new technology with a slightly less cavalier attitude: In developing cancer drugs that could save millions of lives—just like robot cars are promised to do—we understand we can’t ignore problems in…

> its worth approaching this exciting new technology with a slightly less cavalier attitude

While I'm a huge fan of vehicle automation, I have plenty of concern that it not be commonly used until it is in fact safer overall (I allow that come circumstances become less safe while others become more). I'm not sure what "cavalier" attitude you refer to? Where, exactly, are people claiming there is no concern for safety? What legislation has been passed that is seeing through rose-colored glasses?

Heck, the death referenced in the headline got lots of attention, both in criticism and in praise of automation, so I can see a lot of conclusions from that but "cavalier" isn't one of them. Looks to me like all sorts of caution is being considered, proclaimed, and hammered.

So what cavalier attitude is there that this article, with it's admittedly weak arguments, is good to be fighting?

Post reply on HN