Pedestrians and motorcyclists are supposed to play chicken, one supposes. The self-driving problem requires general intelligence and a theory of mind, both unsolved problems.
Self driving only has to be better than people drivers, statistically, to be a benefit to society. This probably isn't a very high bar.
No, comparing against a general population average is way too low, because automated cars won't randomly replace drivers. They need to be at least as good as the sort of good driver that self-driving cars would replace. Taxi drivers, for example, are much better drivers than average people.
Further, I think a variety of factors, including politics and liability structures, mean self-driving cars will have to be radically better than the average human driver. For example, each car-caused death is seen as the responsibility of some human. But every Waymo death will be seen as the responsibility of Waymo. Responsibility for the current 100 deaths per day is diffuse, and so accepted. But if it's 40 deaths per day for Waymo and 60 for Musk, nobody's going to shrug at that.
Are you saying if auto driving kills 5% fewer people we shouldn't use it because it's not good enough? If so, that sounds like a case of great is the enemy of good.
That's the other issue: the already low baseline. Pedestrian fatalities in the US are unacceptably high already, and let's not talk about the standards of driving instruction and road safety enforcement.
Comments
Self driving only has to be better than people drivers, statistically, to be a benefit to society. This probably isn't a very high bar.
No, comparing against a general population average is way too low, because automated cars won't randomly replace drivers. They need to be at least as good as the sort of good driver that self-driving cars would replace. Taxi drivers, for example, are much better drivers than average people.
Further, I think a variety of factors, including politics and liability structures, mean self-driving cars will have to be radically better than the average human driver. For example, each car-caused death is seen as the responsibility of some human. But every Waymo death will be seen as the responsibility of Waymo. Responsibility for the current 100 deaths per day is diffuse, and so accepted. But if it's 40 deaths per day for Waymo and 60 for Musk, nobody's going to shrug at that.
Are you saying if auto driving kills 5% fewer people we shouldn't use it because it's not good enough? If so, that sounds like a case of great is the enemy of good.
No, I am not saying that.
That's the other issue: the already low baseline. Pedestrian fatalities in the US are unacceptably high already, and let's not talk about the standards of driving instruction and road safety enforcement.