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

Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#51

Post by espadrine »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #26
fennecfoxen wrote: post #3

Article argues, "autopilot could let people who are blind and disabled drive now, where they couldn't drive before. but they could never get killed in a car accident while driving before, so this is ethically questionable." Article's logic is dumber than a sack of hair.

The article is arguing for inaction in the Trolley Problem [1]. In short: You have a choice between saving five people and letting one other person die, or doing nothing and letting five people die. Which is a controversial position, but not stupid exactly. I would call it misguided, and certainly not a very utilitarian position. And given the options I personally would vote for the utilitarian answer: Save five peop…

That logic ignores the current state.

The logic is: "People are not able to drive. Thanks to X, they now are, but have probability Y of dying. Given that Y > 0, X should not be granted."

With X = driving license, and Y = human car fatalities, that logic concludes that driving licenses should not be granted.

The Trolley problem is an interesting ethical question because it is not a daily occurrence. This scenario, on the other hand, is.

To me, the critical factor is that the risk of death is equal or reduced statistically, which so far seems to be the case.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#52

Post by thedevil »

turtlebits wrote: post #47
thedevil wrote: post #35

One day my son will drive. Do I want for him to face a 1/10000 chance of being killed each year by a human driver? Or do I want for him to face a 1/20000 chance of being killed each year by an autonomous vehicle? I'll take option two, for him and for me. I don't give a damn about philosophical questions. And I don't give a damn if it's a different dice I'm rolling. The only reason I care much about this one death is…

The only problem is that the statistics can vary greatly as there are so many factors to consider. Car age/model, geographic area, roads driven, etc.

I hear you. Right now, statistics are limited and misleading. Frankly, I think Tesla is intentionally misleading with statistics (the miles aren't apples-to-apples but Tesla is using them as if they are).

But autonomous vehicles will eventually be much, much safer than human drivers if they aren't already.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#53

Post by randyrand »

placeybordeaux wrote: post #22
seangrant wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Summed up by the author's question "Would we really accept higher statistical safety, if that came with new risks and accident types that we could easily avoid today?" Who would say no to this?

If you frame it entirely as safety most people will say that they want everyone else to use a driverless car, but they will keep on driving themselves, because everyone thinks they are a great driver. The reason why people will choose to use driverless cars will most likely be convenience, safety will just be a nice additional win.

As an alternative you could just have automated braking, adjust steering, etc in critical situations.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#54

Post by madmax96 »

takeda wrote: post #21
lanevorockz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By Cavalier atitude you mean very slowly while thousands of people die every year.

You know very well what he meant. Just because this technology MAY[1] save lives in the future doesn't mean you can sacrifice others for greater good. This is also the reason why we don't allow for experimenting on humans in the medical field. [1] This is something that while I am fan of Tesla I'm still convinced Google is doing this properly i.e. build autonomous system from the scratch. What Tesla offers is an auto…

>doesn't mean you can sacrifice others for greater good.

Nobody forced them to use the driverless features. The driver took a risk and died.

EDIT: newline after quote for formatting

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#55

Post by tynpeddler »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #28
tobyjsullivan wrote: post #20

I couldn't get through most of the article because the premise was so weak. Specifically, I couldn't get over the "different people will die" argument - the implication being that the status quo is somehow more fair. This ignores the fact that many collision-related fatalities are not the drivers or in any way at fault. 2014 stats[0] show that 38% of fatalities in car accidents were not drivers. It's reasonable to as…

The "different people will die" argument has been debated for decades in the philosophical question called the "Trolley Problem." [1] The short answer is that yes, it's generally agreed to make the active choice to save more people, even if it means different people die. Air bags kill people sometimes in accidents where they likely wouldn't have died, but we put up with the risk because overall we're more likely to l…

I'm not sure if the trolley problem applies here. The trolley problem relies on one of the choices being passive. In the case of cars however, both choices require active effort. Either we actively build cars that cause X deaths every year, or we actively build cars that cause Y deaths every year. It seems pretty obvious that we should build the car that causes the fewest deaths.

Even if this is a trolley problem, if we look at the problem from the point of the regulators, then the situation could be considered the trolley problem turned on its head. Regulators can do nothing, and let Tesla develop their autopilot and save lots of lives. Or regulators can actively intervene, stop Tesla, and thousands more will die. From this point of view, the trolley is headed towards one man and you have a switch in hand to kill 5 people instead. It's hard to imagine that anyone would choose to flip the switch.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#56

Post by banku_brougham »

The responses in this thread all seem to hold the assumption that these flotillas of self driving cars will have a low failure rate.

The Tesla crash makes it easy to imagine a 100 car freeway pile-ups caused by AI drivers discovering novel ways to crash. Driving headlong into the side of a trailer because the color looked like the sky?

The possibilities are endless, and the subsequent media attention and reactionary legislation could set back the whole project back a generation.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#57

Post by JoeAltmaier »

underwires wrote: post #50
turtlebits wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only problem is that the statistics can vary greatly as there are so many factors to consider. Car age/model, geographic area, roads driven, etc.

How about this factor - 31% of all traffic-related deaths involve alcohol-impaired driving.

SO, a car breathalyzer that allowed only automatic driving if too high, would definitely be an improvement we could all get on board with?

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#58

Post by tfb »

These self-driving cars are a good start though. It makes sense - to me at least - that more self-driving cars on the road means fewer accidents. Imagine if nearly every vehicle was autonomous and wirelessly networked with other nearby vehicles. We'd see little to no accidents, assuming everything is secure and working correctly.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#59

Post by uola »

madmax96 wrote: post #42

>We can’t cut corners just because we want to rush a life-saving product to market. But there's a huge difference between a self-driving car and a novel drug. These cars are using statistical learning mechanisms -- it is impossible to prove that the car will always function correctly. >Yes, it could be that autonomous cars will save many more lives than they take. But “the ends justify the means” is a dangerous appro…

Computer software can also be updated, yet almost everything is broken. Rushing self-driving cars is not pragmatic, it's keeping the lack of safety culture that driving already has. Whatever lives you save in the short run is likely to be lost many times over on the margin of the standard we expect from self-driving cars. Pragmatic safety would be things like speed and distance enforcement. That's how self-driving is really going to save lives, by not making those one in hundred thousand decisions that kill people. Which you could have today if it wasn't for that watching movies with autopilot is so much cooler than being saved from yourself.

Re: Tesla Autopilot Crash: Why We Should Worry About a Single Death

#60

Post by nyxtom »

This was going to happen eventually. My whole feeling on this situation is it will continue to put the pressure on the industry to get much much better at this. A tragedy yes, but at least that person's death can be used to help improve safety - which is a huge shift from throwing up our hands to driver error.
Post reply on HN