this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
20 points (100.0% liked)
News
49 readers
2 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’d say a 20% difference is pretty significant.
I would say that’s not actually at all a relevant question, but a form of whataboutism, since this is looking at just driverless programs and comparing how they are with themselves, and what problems with programming and training models could result in that difference.
Agreed. The argument of matching autonomous vehicle perceptions with human perception should be completely irrelevant. When an autonomous vehicle has that significant of a margin of error, who ends up being responsible for the accident? When humans are involved, the driver is responsible. Is a manufacturer liable in the event of all autonomous vehicle caused accidents? Guaranteed corporations will rally and lobby to make that not possible. The situations aren't the same and a huge selling point of autonomous vehicles has always been that they should be the safest form of piloting a vehicle.
There's some details to be sorted out, of course, but this isn't the major question people make it out to be.
As is the owner, at least in the US. People will stay responsible for their vehicles (and, more relevantly, for insuring them).
If it turns out to be a defect, of course they are. They are even without the vehicle having autonomy. If they become responsible for more of the vehicle's performance, of course it stands to reason they'll be responsible for more of the outcomes as well.
Which is exactly why it is relevant to compare their safety to that of human drivers.
The crucial point in autonomous car adaption ought to be whether they are better than humans or not. So if they hit fewer children than human drivers do, they're better, even if they were a further 20% better at avoiding adults.