It is more than zero. Anything that beats humans is a win. Getting to zero is unrealistic. Nothing has a zero risk of death.
What’s the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it’s more than zero.
Steve@communick.news 1 year ago
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.
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.
baggins@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Ok ya pedantic fuck. I edited my comment just for you. I know English is hard to understand.
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.
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.
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.”
baggins@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
That’s not what I said though.
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.