Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this pro cross-talk argument all the time... but wouldn't that leave open a big vulnerability for bad actors to send false data between cars and, if they should choose to, control multiple vehicles and cause collisions?
It's part of the growing myth that is "self driving cars". People seem to hand-wave and make up what these supposed future self driving cars will do - and worse, they hand-wave and assert they'll be objectively better at X than humans, without any evidence to backup the assertion. Self driving cars are made by fallible humans using fallible programming languages and constructs. They can't possibly account for every s…
Google's road tested self driving car is already safer[1] than a human driving. Suggesting that a computer will be a more reliable processor of data and computer of maths than a human is not something which needs data to back it up. The ability of drivers is so variable and in the aggregate there are so many of them that it's almost self-evident that a self driving car which crosses a very low threshold for entry ("being road legal") will be better than a human.
> They can't possibly account for every situation or scenario - but people hand-wave and say it magically will.
Nobody is saying that they will any more than people argue that autopilot on a plane will. It's very plain to see that right now, as of this second, there is a self-driving car which is safer than a human driver. It is not yet legal to buy, but it doesn't change the fact that it's safer. It may be that a bug crops up which kills a few people. But that doesn't make it less safe, it makes the cause of death for some of the users different to "human error".
[1]http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is-rid...
