• Akisamb@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    You can’t take one accident and use that to generalize.

    You need to take into account all accidents and see how worse humans are.

    https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-lot-more-than-waymos-software-data-shows/

    Cars are naturally dangerous. A robot car is going to have deaths no matter what. That does not mean they are bad if they mean a reduction of cars and accidents. Taxis if done properly can help a public transport system.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Most automated driving companies chose fair weather cities for their tests for a reason. Sure, if you include all human drivers driving in a blizzard at night on a curvy mountain road you get more crashes than AI drivers on sunny, bright days on wide, open city streets but that is not a fair comparison.

      • Akisamb@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t agree. Curvy roads are dangerous, but there are much more conflicts in cities. You’re not going to have many pedestrians in curvy mountain roads.

        That said, you are right that the ideal comparison would be int the same city. But I’m not sure that the data exists, I’ll have to look this afternoon.

        That said, even if my data is not perfect, it’s much better than taking one accident and saying that self driving cars are dangerous. They are not going to be magically better than humans, after all driving is a difficult task, but we should at least crunch the numbers before dismissing them.