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

SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 166 posts

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#91

Post by spondylosaurus »

gkoberger wrote: post #56

This is such a weird framing. The person (a pedestrian) died because a car driven by a human hit them. There was also a human-driven police car that was also blocking the ambulance. I don't think the Cruise made this situation better, but it was a human-driven car that caused the death. And as far as I could find, Cruise has never hit a human.

Nah, the reason someone needed an ambulance is totally immaterial here. A person had life-threatening injuries, and Cruise prevented that person from receiving critical treatment. Counterfactually, that person would most likely be alive if the Cruise taxi hadn't been on the street that day.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#92

Post by slg »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #84
slg wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent point. There are two independent causes to this person's death. 1. A human driver grievously injured a pedestrian 2. An AI driver delayed medical care for the injured pedestrian That person is potentially still alive if 2 doesn't happen. They are certainly still alive if 1 doesn't happen. Therefore, 1 deserves more of the blame here. Considering these are two independent causes, we can still be u…

I disagree that 1 deserves more of the blame here—a blocked ambulance is blocked from attending to all medical emergencies, not just medical emergencies caused by (human-powered) car accidents. If the robotaxi had blocked the ambulance from reaching someone who'd just had a stroke, blame would rest 100% on the robotaxi. And there's no telling that this won't happen again.

>If the robotaxi had blocked the ambulance from reaching someone who'd just had a stroke, blame would rest 100% on the robotaxi.

Yes, but that isn't what happened here. You are no longer assigning blame for a real incident. You are theorizing about the potential damage that AI drivers can cause in similar situations. But once you do that, you also have to consider the tradeoffs between human and AI drivers and all the deaths that human drivers cause. Otherwise, you aren't actually prioritizing the overall safety of our communities.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#93

Post by sergers »

bee_rider wrote: post #73

The whole description is pretty confusing, I hope video is shared at some point so we can understand it a little better. I’m sure they (Cruise as well as the city) don’t want to dump it on the general public immediately for good reasons, but hopefully we’ll see it eventually. > A stalled Cruise robotaxi blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle to the hospital in an Aug. 14 incident…

Yea seems a little weird.

Here if a ambulance has lights and sirens on, it has right away in every direction (including going opposite of traffic), where everyone pulls over to the shoulder.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-an...

And if there are other first responders, which sounds like firefighters? They usually section off the area with either their vehicle.

Sounds like this was multilane both directions, and noone cared there was a ambulance... Oh right it's san fran

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#94

Post by asu_thomas »

88913527 wrote: post #86
perihelions wrote: post #62

- "blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle" I'm taking no "position" on either "side" of the debate, but I feel it's noteworthy that a *human-driven* car killed a pedestrian (seriously?) here, and that fact is utterly banal and completely unremarkable to the authors—and to us. AI cars are still highly flawed and kill people. Human-driven cars are highly flawed, probably more flawe…

Kind of hard to assign liability to some matrix algebra that unfortunately did some computations that were suboptimal given the conditions. If these costs add up, it turns into a tragedy of the commons type of problem. A more modern form of the "corporations can pollute but don't pay the costs".

This is why automated driving is untenable, just like why LLMs are untenable with copyright. Capitalism is so awkward that it requires these contradictory legal frameworks to give an impression of rationality or naturalistic logic. The contradictions come to the foreground more with new technology, but they have always been there.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#95

Post by [deleted] »

zwerdlds wrote: post #80
perihelions wrote: post #62

- "blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle" I'm taking no "position" on either "side" of the debate, but I feel it's noteworthy that a *human-driven* car killed a pedestrian (seriously?) here, and that fact is utterly banal and completely unremarkable to the authors—and to us. AI cars are still highly flawed and kill people. Human-driven cars are highly flawed, probably more flawe…

Will Cruise be taking centralized responsibility for the issues here? Will the person who caused the initial accident be held responsible? I think it's very worthwhile to think of the overall improvements to safety while still acknowledging the arbitrage a corporation brings.

[deleted]

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#96

Post by oatmeal1 »

nkrisc wrote: post #78
perihelions wrote: post #62

- "blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle" I'm taking no "position" on either "side" of the debate, but I feel it's noteworthy that a *human-driven* car killed a pedestrian (seriously?) here, and that fact is utterly banal and completely unremarkable to the authors—and to us. AI cars are still highly flawed and kill people. Human-driven cars are highly flawed, probably more flawe…

Because why the person needed an ambulance is completely immaterial to whether the ambulance was impeded a self-driving vehicle or not. It could have just as easily been a heart attack and the questions raised about self-driving vehicles would be no different.

GP is criticizing the narrative focus. A robotaxi causing a new, less serious problem is the focus over a commonplace very serious problem caused by conventional cars.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#97

Post by slg »

doublerabbit wrote: post #90
slg wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent point. There are two independent causes to this person's death. 1. A human driver grievously injured a pedestrian 2. An AI driver delayed medical care for the injured pedestrian That person is potentially still alive if 2 doesn't happen. They are certainly still alive if 1 doesn't happen. Therefore, 1 deserves more of the blame here. Considering these are two independent causes, we can still be u…

Equal blame to both. Both of them caused death. One by causing the potential death and the other stopping the remediation of death. The difference is you can sentence a person. A robot, not such.

>The difference is you can sentence a person to court. A robot, not such.

People generally don't end up facing much legal trouble when killing a pedestrian in an accident. It usually requires negligence. I don't know enough about this accident (or the Cruise vehicle's behavior) to say that anyone was negligent.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#98

Post by redhale »

perihelions wrote: post #62

- "blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle" I'm taking no "position" on either "side" of the debate, but I feel it's noteworthy that a *human-driven* car killed a pedestrian (seriously?) here, and that fact is utterly banal and completely unremarkable to the authors—and to us. AI cars are still highly flawed and kill people. Human-driven cars are highly flawed, probably more flawe…

I think the fact that we as a society allow for cars to be driven at all, given the number of deaths that inevitably result, proves that there is at least some utilitarian instinct. Because of course someone could always argue that cars themselves are a "centralized, attributable malefactor" (similar to, say, cigarettes). For instance we could imagine a world in which the only cars allowed on the road were emergency vehicles. In that world, your point might be stronger.

And also, AI cars are on the roads, aren't they? Sure, not all of humanity is instantly going to be ok with them, but we'll probably get there (assuming the technology gets there).

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#99

Post by beardedwizard »

robswc wrote: post #37
fuelfive wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this logic, the title would be equally correct if they wrote "Jimmy Buffet Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance"

Exactly. Everyone knows exactly why it was worded like that and I don't understand why anyone would even pretend to play dumb.

This. The article is a hit piece. The more you know the more you see media bias. Pamela Price is another media favorite in the Bay Area.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#100

Post by gkoberger »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #91
gkoberger wrote: post #56

This is such a weird framing. The person (a pedestrian) died because a car driven by a human hit them. There was also a human-driven police car that was also blocking the ambulance. I don't think the Cruise made this situation better, but it was a human-driven car that caused the death. And as far as I could find, Cruise has never hit a human.

Nah, the reason someone needed an ambulance is totally immaterial here. A person had life-threatening injuries, and Cruise prevented that person from receiving critical treatment. Counterfactually, that person would most likely be alive if the Cruise taxi hadn't been on the street that day.

What makes you believe this? According to the videos, there were multiple ambulances on the scene and the injured person was on their way to the hospital within 90 seconds.

It’s very likely both are true: Cruise made things more difficult, but didn’t cause enough of an issue to materially change the outcome.

Source: https://sfstandard.com/2023/09/01/person-dies-cruise-robotax...

Post reply on HN