71–80 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driving is already a Russian roulette right? If autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers as advertised the barrel would just have more capacity.
Define 'safer'. If you have not paid your taxes, get in to your car, and it drives you to the local court-house or police station, this is a new risk, no?
The first sentence of this article has an interesting reading: "U.S. regulators on Thursday issued final rules eliminating the need for automated vehicle manufacturers to equip fully autonomous vehicles with manual driving controls to meet crash standards." It does sound like "U.S. regulators are removing regulations.", which does look like they are acting against themselves..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the analogy fail given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible and pursued and unicorns not?
> given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible I think of this as an unproven assumption, not a given.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the analogy fail given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible and pursued and unicorns not?
That’s part of the point: Whether or not they are eventually possible is an open question. The standard argument for agnosticism as to the possibility is “The problem reduces to artificial general intelligence, the possibility of which is an open question.”
Which parts of driving would require AGI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driving is already a Russian roulette right? If autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers as advertised the barrel would just have more capacity.
Statistical equivalence is one thing, but the risk will shift within the population. Let’s set the bar a bit higher than above average ? The average driver is a dumbass. autonomous vehicles should be expected to consistently make better decisions than the best drivers, not just the average ones.
If your vehicle is heading relentlessly toward a group of schoolchildren it would be nice to have a way to override it. Either that or no windows so you won't be haunted by it every night of your life.
“Self driving” means that it is far more likely for a human driver to override the car in panic and hit the children than it is for the car to hit the children autonomously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> given autonomous vehicles are eventually possible I think of this as an unproven assumption, not a given.
I don't get why people think this is theoretical. We have autonomous vehicles driving on the road _today_. They've logged millions of miles. The question is one of fidelity. Can they drive "safe enough?" Can they drive in a blizzard? These are important questions and are needed to answer a question like, are autonomous vehicles "sufficiently advanced" enough to fully replace human drivers in most scenarios? But even…
If your vehicle is heading relentlessly toward a group of schoolchildren it would be nice to have a way to override it. Either that or no windows so you won't be haunted by it every night of your life.
We have the technology to replace schoolchildren at a much lower cost than cars
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If genetically engineering a unicorn was given the level of resources that self driving has, then I think we would have unicorns by now.
I'm considering a graphene horseshoe startup for unicorns.