undefined

points

[-]

Use statistical incidence rates and not "i saw a thing.." to make that call. I mean I'm sure most drivers regularly think "wow maybe humans shouldnt be allowed to drive" every time they go out on the road.

by antonymoose2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The thing about human drivers is we’re all unique little stupid snowflakes.

If a software powered car is vulnerable to a certain condition, presumably, all running that software system are. The rare day we can generalize a bad driving story, in fact.

by foota2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't think this checks out. Would the model do the same thing when presented with the exact same inputs? Yes. Is it more likely to do the same thing at the same intersection? Probably. But if you repeat a similar setup somewhere it might not. Bad behavior still exists and should be fixed, but it doesn't mean they're bad drivers in general.

by zen9282 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

People have trouble seeing outside of their own biases and understanding how different another view can be with a different background and context to the situation. I have no problem confidently saying the parent poster has definitely made worse and more questionable driving decisions under more constrained and more dangerous situations on the road, and then never thinks twice about it after that moment because it had no consequences. All they need to do is look at driver safety statistics of autonomous vehicles vs humans to immediately reject their flawed understanding, and they never will.

Luckily, cars and driving in general aren't enshrined as an early amendment of the constitution (in the US) and aren't even considered a legal right, so pushback to change won't be artificially inflated several decades by heavily motivated interest groups seeking to spread misinformation about their safety. Not a bang, but a whimper.

by mindslight59 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

You're missing that the difference is incentives, specifically perverse incentives being scaled up. If we were talking about an individual hacker who programmed their car for automated driving and it made the above wrong decision, people would straightforwardly attribute fault to the individual. The problem here is that large corpos, who will eagerly tout their perogative to do whatever they want as long as it's within the law, going beyond even that and breaking the law with impunity.

We can easily imagine a crash from such a thing being declared "no fault" (or even the fault of the turning driver!) based on corpo-sympathetic police, judiciary, and regulators who have succumbed to the inevitable "computer can't be wrong". That perceived lack of justice is the problem - when another individual does something wrong (either accidentally or willful) and gets away with it, we can brush it off as their bad behavior will eventually catch up to them. Whereas with corpos it has been thoroughly demonstrated that this will not happen.