Comment on Cruise recalls all self-driving cars after grisly accident and California ban | All 950 of the General Motors subsidiary’s autonomous cars will be taken off roads for a software update

• raptir@lemdro.id ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Around 1 per 100 million miles.

  source

  • noride@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In all weather conditions. Autonomous vehicles only drive in optimal conditions, humans have to suffer whatever nature throws at us.

    source
  • errer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The irony here is that the accident occurred because a human driver hit this pedestrian first. So it ain’t like us humans have a clean conscience here…

    source

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s a trolley problem of sorts. Currently it seems that we have higher standards for AI than humans. I bet that even if AI was twice as good driver, we’d still hate to hear about it causing accidents. I’m not sure why that is. I’m wondering if it has something to do with the fact, that there’s really not anyone to blame and that doesn’t fit with our morals.

      source

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Because corporations running AI means the first time actual human thought enters the picture is when the dividend check gets deposited.

        And shareholder profits, sacred in law and the market, will push safety standards based on cost, not fewest deaths.

        source
  • GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I want to believe you, but source please?

    source

    • raptir@lemdro.id ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      nhtsa.gov/…/traffic-crash-death-estimates-2022#:~….

      source

      • GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Just the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks, internet stranger!

        source
• Steve@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  According to these numbers 1 in 73 million. Which is much better than I thought.

  source

  • XeroxCool@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Which includes trucks hauling through unpopulated areas

    source
• baggins@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  What’s the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it’s more than zero.

  source

  • raptir@lemdro.id ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That’s equally ridiculous to say. Self driving cars just need to be better than people to be worth it, they just currently are not better than people.

    source

    • baggins@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s ridiculous to think that cars shouldn’t be killing people? Well smack my ass and call me an extremist.

      source

      • raptir@lemdro.id ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yes, it’s ridiculous to say that if self driving cars kill fewer people than human driven cars but still more than zero that we should not use them. That’s like saying “why use seatbelts, they’re not 100% effective.”

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • wile_e8@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Are you calling for a ban on human driven cars? They killed more than zero people yesterday! If you aren’t, you’ve accepted a human-driven vehicular homicide rate above zero.

        source
  • Steve@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It is more than zero. Anything that beats humans is a win. Getting to zero is unrealistic. Nothing has a zero risk of death.

    source

    • baggins@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Correct, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Zero is the ideal number, so anything that gets us closer to that is good.

      source

      • Steve@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You’re shifting goal posts.

        What’s the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it’s more than zero.

        Correct, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Zero is the ideal number, so anything that gets us closer to that is good.

        Acceptable is different than ideal.

        source

        • -> View More Comments