Comment

Comment on Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Trollception@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
So it’s better to put more lives in danger so that there can be someone to blame?

source
- Blackmist@feddit.uk ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.
  
  source
  - Tja@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    So you would prefer to have higher chances of dying, just to write “Joe Smith did it” on it?
    
    source
  - ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    But if a human driver is dangerous, and gets put in jail or get taken off the roads, there are another 3 or more dangerous human drivers already taking their place. 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.
    
    source
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The answer is the person behind the wheel.

Tesla makes it very clear to the driver they you still have to pay attention and be ready to take over any time. Full self driving engages the in cabin nanny cam to enforce that you pay attention, above and beyond the frequent reminders to apply turning force to the steering wheel.

Now, once Tesla goes Mercedes and says you don’t have to pay attention, it’s gonna be the company that should step in. I know that’s a big old SHOULD, but right now that’s not the situation anyway.

source
- exanime@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Now, once Tesla goes Mercedes and says you don’t have to pay attention, it’s gonna be the company that should step in
  
  That doesn’t give me warm and fuzzies either… Imagine a poor dude having to fight Mercedes or Testla because he was crippled by a sleeping driver and bad AI… Not even counting the lobbying that would certainly happen to reduce and then eliminate their liability
  
  source
- AProfessional@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That’s today because “full self driving” doesn’t exist yet but when it does?
  
  source
  - dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    There will be legal battles for sure. I don’t know how you can argue for anything besides the manufacturer taking responsibility. I don’t know how that doesn’t end up with auto pilot fatalities treated as a class where there’s a lookup table of payouts though. This is the intersection of liability and money/power, so it’s functionally uncharted territory at least in the US.
    
    source
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨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 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.

source
- ShepherdPie@midwest.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.
  
  source
  - Tja@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.
    
    source
- sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.
  
  source
  - Blackmist@feddit.uk ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Because I’m sure that’s what corporations are interested in.
    
    source
kava@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.

source
- exanime@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Hmmm I get you point but you seem to be taken the cavalier position of one who’d never be affected.
  
  Let’s proposed this alternative scenario: AI is 50% safer and would reduce death from 40k to 20k a year if adopted. However, the 20k left will include your family and, unfortunately , there is no accountability therefore, nobody will pay to help raise your orphan nephew or help grandma now that your grandpa died ran over by a Tesla… Would you approve AI driving going forward?
  
  source
  - kava@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    A) you do realize cars have insurance and when someone hits you, that insurance pays out the damages, right? That is how the current system works, AI driver or not.
    
    Accidents happen. Humans make mistakes and kill people and are not held criminally liable. It happens.
    
    If some guy killed your nephew and made him an orphan and the justice system determined he was not negligent - then your nephew would still be an orphan and would get a payout by the insurance company.
    
    Exact same thing that happens in the case of an AI driven car hitting someone
    
    B) if I had a button to save 100k people but it killed my mother, I wouldn’t do it. What is your point?
    
    Using your logic, if your entire family was in the 20,000 who would be saved - you would prefer them dead? You’d rather them dead with “accountability” rather than alive?
    
    source
    exanime@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Do you know what a thought experiment is??
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yes, unless you mean I need to literally sacrifice my family. But if my family was randomly part of the 20k, I’d defend self-driving cars if they are proven to be safer.
    
    I’m very much a statistics-based person, so I’ll defend the statistically better option. In fact, me being part of that 20k gives me a larger than usual platform to discuss it.
    
    source
    exanime@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    No, I do mean literally your family. Not because I’m trying to be mean to you, I’m just trying to highlight you’d agree with a contract when you think the price does not apply to you… But in reality the price will apply to someone, whether they agree with the contract and enjoy the benefits or not
    
    It’s the exact same situation with real life with the plane manufacturers. They lobby the government to allow recalls not to be done immediately but instead on the regular maintenance of the planes. This is to save money but it literally means that some planes are put there with known defects that will not be addressed for months (or years, depending on the maintenance needed)
    
    Literally, people who’d never have a loved one in one of those flights decided that was acceptable to save money. They agreed, it’s ok to put your life at risk, statistically, because they want more money
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Maddier1993@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.

source
John_McMurray@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The driver. Your whole statement is a total straw man.

source
slumberlust@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.

source
TypicalHog@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Well, it should obviously be the owner of the car.

source