558
San Francisco protestors are disabling autonomous vehicles using traffic cones | "It's a great time" (www.techspot.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Safe Streets Rebel's protest comes after automatic vehicles were blamed for incidents including crashing into a bus and running over a dog. City officials in June said...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (8 children)

You don't need to put faith into companies beyond the faith that is put into humans. Make companies just as financially liable as humans are, and you'll still see a decrease in accidents.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    You mean those companies who will lobby and spend a fraction of their wealth to make those lawsuits disappear?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    How is that different from the current system of large vehicular insurance companies spending a fraction of their wealth to make their lawsuits disappear?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    It's no different at all. We should have stronger laws for such scenarios.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    Ok, but in the context of letting computers drive, I feel like people want to enforce this perfect system of liability on automated systems where we already have an existing criminal and civil legal system as is that is designed to nowhere near the same standard for humans.

    Why are we willing to say that it is unacceptable that no computer can kill people on the road when almost 43,000 die in the USA due to humans driving?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Uh, because software can be fixed and those deaths can be prevented? How the hell can you ask this question seriously? I can't believe how many people are willing to blatantly shill for these companies, even if it gets people fucking killed.

    And no you can't claim to be saving lives because these driverless cars very often kill people in situations that a human driver would easily navigate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Why are we willing to say that it is unacceptable that no computer can kill people on the road when almost 43,000 die in the USA due to humans driving?

    This part is bogus to me as well. My friend who used to work in self-driving said that when self driving can be "just" better than human driving, technology has won. In statistical terms, it means having slightly lesser fatalities than humans (<43k fatalities with respect to the num of human drivers).

    Now it's up for debate lesser by how much exactly. Just 5% reduction or 50% reduction. If we want to go for 99% reduction, we should stop building self-driving tech altogether.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •