• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    7 months ago

    The question isn’t “are they safer than the average human driver?”

    The question is “who goes to prison when that self driving car has an oopsie, veers across three lanes of traffic and wipes out a family of four?”

    Because if the answer is “nobody”, they shouldn’t be on the road. There’s zero accountability, and because it’s all wibbly-wobbly AI bullshit, there’s no way to prove that the issues are actually fixed.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        7 months ago

        Accountability is important. If a human driver is dangerous, they get taken off the roads and/or sent to jail. If a self driving car kills somebody, it’s just “oops, oh well, these things happen, but shareholder make a lot of money so never mind”.

        I do not want “these things happen” on my headstone.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          So you would prefer to have higher chances of dying, just to write “Joe Smith did it” on it?

        • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          But if a human driver is dangerous, and gets put in jail or get taken off the roads, there are likely already more dangerous human drivers taking their place. Not to mention, genuine accidents, even horrific ones, do happen with human drivers. If the rate of accidents and rate of fatal accidents with self-driving vehicles is way down versus human drivers, you are actually risking your life more by trusting in human drivers and taking way more risks that way. Having someone be accountable for your death doesn’t matter if you’ve already died because of them.

          Is it any better if you have “Killed by Bill Johnson’s SUV” on your headstone?

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The question isn’t “are they safer than the average human driver?”

      How is that not the question? That absolutely is the question. Just because someone is accountable for your death doesn’t mean you aren’t already dead, it doesn’t bring you back to life. If a human driver is actively dangerous and get taken off the road or put in jail, there are very likely already plenty more taking that human drivers place. Plus genuine accidents, even horrific ones, do happen with human drivers. If the death rate for self-driving vehicles is really that much lower, you are risking your life that much more by trusting in human drivers.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah that person’s take seems a little unhinged as throwing people in prison after a car accident only happens if they’re intoxicated or driving recklessly. These systems don’t have to be perfect to save lives. They just have to be better than the average driver.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Hell, let’s put the threshold at “better than 99% of drivers”, because every driver I know thinks they are better than average.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly.

        We should solve the accountability problem, but the metric should be lives and accidents. If the self-driving system proves it causes fewer accidents and kills fewer people, it should be preferred. Full stop.

        Throwing someone in jail may be cathartic, but the goal is fewer issues on the road, not more people in jail.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because if the answer is “nobody”, they shouldn’t be on the road

      Do you understand how absurd this is? Let’s say AI driving results in 50% less deaths. That’s 20,000 people every year that isn’t going to die.

      And you reject that for what? Accountability? You said in another comment that you don’t want “shit happens sometimes” on your headstone.

      You do realize that’s exactly what’s going on the headstones of those 40,000 people that die annually right now? Car accidents happen. We all know they happen and we accept them as a necessary evil. “Shit happens”

      By not changing it, ironically, you’re advocating for exactly what you claim you’re against.

    • Maddier1993@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t agree with your argument.

      Making a human go to prison for wiping out a family of 4 isn’t going to bring back the family of 4. So you’re just using deterrence to hopefully make drivers more cautious.

      Yet, year after year… humans cause more deaths by negligence than tools can cause by failing.

      The question is definitely “How much safer are they compared to human drivers”

      It’s also much easier to prove that the system has those issues fixed compared to training a human hoping that their critical faculties are intact. Rigorous Software testing and mechanical testing are within legislative reach and can be made strict requirements.

    • slumberlust@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      The question for me is not what margins the feature is performing on, as they will likely be better than human error raters, but how they market the product irresponsiblely.