Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My opinion is that we will come to a point where self-driving cars are demonstrably, but only marginally, safer road users than humans.

From an ethical standpoint the interesting phase will only start then. It‘s one thing to bring a small fleet of high tech (e.g. having LIDAR) vehicles to the road. It‘s another to bring that technology to a saturated mass market which is primarily cost driven. Yes, I assume self-driving cars will eventually compete with human driven ones.

Will we, as a society, accept some increase in traffic fatalities in return for considerable savings that self-driving cars will bring?

Will you or me as an individual accept a slightly higher risk in exchange for tangible time savings?



> demonstrably, but only marginally, safer road users than humans.

I believe the claim is 38 multitudes better than humans, significantly better than marginally.

> accept some increase in traffic fatalities

No. And the question is more about "some" than "some increase"

> accept a slightly higher risk in exchange for tangible time savings?

Texting while driving and even hands free talking were becoming laws in many states before smart phones -- and my experience is that many people readily accept this risk and the legal risk just to communicate faster. The same can be said for the risk of drunk driving -- it's a risk that thousands of Americans take all of the time.


We do all the time, and the answer to your question is, yes if marketed ingeniously. Humans are stupid.


Indeed, history gives us ample examples, but I would‘t call humanity stupid because of that. Each and every such example is a ethical question that we have to solve one way or the other. Burying our heads in the sand will not make technologically and expensive self-driving vehicles go away. Neither will it prevent cheap self-driving clunker.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: