Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
medium.com
Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
1–10 of 341 posts
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#2[deleted]
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#3"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road."
I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people who engage in extreme sports - but fortunately, we are not robots, and we allow activities which do not have any utility for the "we" of society.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#4Excellent overview and opinion of future outcomes.
Is good for people like me whose gut says this is not desireable or workable as it gives simple language lawmakers can read.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#5PSA: this is largely a summary of a video, and that's mentioned at the top of the article but the link isn't provided until the end. It's here: http://a16z.com/2017/01/06/selfdriving-cars-frank-chen/
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#6"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…
Damn, don't you think "we" as a society should eliminate the negative effects/activities? since aside of not having any utility it may bring negative outcomes..
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#7"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…
Damn, don't you think "we" as a society should eliminate the negative effects/activities? since aside of not having any utility it may bring negative outcomes..
The problem is, that "negative effect/activity" is not an objective thing.
To me, drinking(alcohol) is a pointless activity, with literally no upside. It costs money, doesn't feel good, I don't see the social aspect of it, and the danger it poses to people is well documented - it's a "negative" for society in my book. But, at the same time, I am fully happy to acknowledge that there are people who enjoy it, who like to party, and I would never say that drinking should be banned.
I know a few people who treat driving like I treat drinking - they see it as boring, without any benefit, with negative consequences well documented and they clearly think that society would be better off without it. They think that the day that manual drivers are banned can't come soon enough.
As mentioned above - we are not robots. Not everyone enjoys the same things. And that's great.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damn, don't you think "we" as a society should eliminate the negative effects/activities? since aside of not having any utility it may bring negative outcomes..
The problem is, that "negative effect/activity" is not an objective thing. To me, drinking(alcohol) is a pointless activity, with literally no upside. It costs money, doesn't feel good, I don't see the social aspect of it, and the danger it poses to people is well documented - it's a "negative" for society in my book. But, at the same time, I am fully happy to acknowledge that there are people who enjoy it, who like…
I don't think comparing drinking to driving is a good idea,
think of drunk driving, it's illegal. Why? Because it kills people it brings negative experiences such a death on a scale, just drinking at the bar doesn't cause this, right?
The same thing with driving in an autonomous environment, if it causes rapid increase in killings - it should be illegal in the same way as drunk driving. Don't you think so?
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, that "negative effect/activity" is not an objective thing. To me, drinking(alcohol) is a pointless activity, with literally no upside. It costs money, doesn't feel good, I don't see the social aspect of it, and the danger it poses to people is well documented - it's a "negative" for society in my book. But, at the same time, I am fully happy to acknowledge that there are people who enjoy it, who like…
I don't think comparing drinking to driving is a good idea, think of drunk driving, it's illegal. Why? Because it kills people it brings negative experiences such a death on a scale, just drinking at the bar doesn't cause this, right? The same thing with driving in an autonomous environment, if it causes rapid increase in killings - it should be illegal in the same way as drunk driving. Don't you think so?
so guns should be banned? large knives? red meat because all the methane?
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#10> Level by level or straight to level five?
This strikes me as a slightly strange question. Maybe it's just an excuse to present the six level system as a framework for thinking about it, but a huge chunk of commodity new cars on the market this year are level 2. A small chunk of higher end cars are level 3. Teslas are arguably level 4, and we all know there are level 4 & 5 cars on the road around the bay and few other test spots. Still, the majority of cars on the road are level 1 (cruise control?) or 0. The time to decide on the question of whether we should skip the intermediate levels has passed, that ship has sailed, vehicles of all six categories are on the road as we speak.