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

Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#41

Post by aetherson »

bluGill wrote: post #37
CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience?

Serious question.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#42

Post by ghaff »

bluGill wrote: post #37
CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.

More like 1 per 100 million miles in the US. And remember that's all cars. I'm sure it would be significantly lower if you consider only late model cars with modern safety features.

Obviously, a lot of people still die in traffic accidents. But the bar is actually still fairly high for automated systems. I also suspect (though I don't have the numbers) that even if automation were just for highway driving that would, by itself, significantly reduce the fatalities.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#43

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

valine wrote: post #35

I dislike the idea of transportation as a service. I would much rather own a self driving car and use it as a mobile office. Being able to get work done during my commute would be a major benefit. I imagine having a full size monitor with a nice keyboard and mouse that I would leave in the car. That simply wouldn't be possible with a service like Uber.

My wife and I visited Mendocino a couple of weeks ago. The natural beauty of it had us talking about the possibility of living there. The first obvious concern: Employment. It's a 3 hour drive to San Francisco.

My first thought was autonomous electric vehicles and exactly your point. Charge the batteries with sunlight and let the car do the driving to the office in San Francisco and back while I'm pounding out code, design documents, presentations, tax returns, or just hanging out on Hacker News ;-) Not every day, but maybe 3 times a week to spend 4 or 5 hours in the office.

Would that work?

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#45

Post by naner »

bluGill wrote: post #37
CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.

I don't think this is true, people are much less forgiving when machines make fatal mistakes. Also people will be hostile towards the perceived loss of autonomy.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#46

Post by losteverything »

nickez wrote: post #39
losteverything wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom. We control our freedom. Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them. But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no…

> Cars == freedom That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.

True. You can not understand the American family if you do not understand the car of the american family.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#47

Post by aetherson »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #43
valine wrote: post #35

I dislike the idea of transportation as a service. I would much rather own a self driving car and use it as a mobile office. Being able to get work done during my commute would be a major benefit. I imagine having a full size monitor with a nice keyboard and mouse that I would leave in the car. That simply wouldn't be possible with a service like Uber.

My wife and I visited Mendocino a couple of weeks ago. The natural beauty of it had us talking about the possibility of living there. The first obvious concern: Employment. It's a 3 hour drive to San Francisco. My first thought was autonomous electric vehicles and exactly your point. Charge the batteries with sunlight and let the car do the driving to the office in San Francisco and back while I'm pounding out code,…

I think that Mendocino is probably a little far for these purposes, but it seems completely clear to me that if self-driving cars become a genuine thing (not just a safety feature, but an actual "it will drive you to work by itself safely most days" thing), then there will be additional suburban/exurban sprawl.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#48

Post by CaptSpify »

gambiting wrote: post #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 w…

But driving on non-closed roads means you are interacting with people around you. Smoking, drinking, extreme-sports don't necessitate putting others at risk.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#49

Post by rsync »

aetherson wrote: post #41
bluGill wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

No, I would not.

We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone.

We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#50

Post by Retric »

aetherson wrote: post #41
bluGill wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

Yes, that would be better than I was when sleepy making it a net safety gain when driving home late.

As an added bonus I can turn it on in a traffic jam and relax as that's stressful but not fast enough to be dangerous.

Post reply on HN