[gliboc]

I'm returning your argument. Imagine your are driving your car on the highway, but you suddenly have a heart attack and become unable to remain conscious. Do you: (a) Die? (b) Die?

Manned vehicles are not coming anytime soon. They are a whole slew of problems etc. -- you got my point.

I think focusing too much on pesky details is very much a fallacy in this case - you do not want an "AI" to react like a human in all situations, you only want it to drive in a way that is conservative enough not to endanger people too much. And we clearly aren't that far from this goal right now.

[perl4ever]

"Imagine your are driving your car on the highway, but you suddenly have a heart attack and become unable to remain conscious"

Humans who drive cautiously may go for a million miles without an accident. The best self-driving cars (i.e. Waymo) disengage on average every 11,000 miles.[1] It seems to me that a disengagement is equivalent to becoming unconscious without warning, and presumably we both agree that a given human does not have a heart attack while driving every year.

Humans, even with all the people who drive drunk, or texting, or falling asleep, average about 80 million miles between fatalities. Going 11,000 miles between events of total loss of control is nearly four orders of magnitude worse.

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/02/13/waymo-to...

[gliboc]

It is an interesting metric, thank you for pointing it out. Until now I kept in mind the amount of miles between accidents, but surely both should be considered.

However, I think this metric could be irrelevant in the case of a home/work commute. The 11,000 miles average appears to have been obtained basically by randomly driving Waymo cars on Californian roads. But a usual commute is much less than 11,000 miles, and if your self-driving can do it by itself once then probably it can do it twice. As the article puts it:

"The value of the data is limited, however, as the figures don’t factor in the complexity of environments in which vehicles are tested–dense urban settings, versus low-speed suburbs or less complex highway driving–nor do they show conditions including weather, light or speed."

Nevertheless, you seem to have missed my point : I was arguing that coming up with a specific use-case example that may (or may not, actually) go wrong is an argument that goes both ways.

[vel0city]

I've experienced much more soft debris fall from a vehicle in front of me on the road than I've had heart attacks at the wheel.