[bipson]

Well, which one is it now:

Are self-driving computers superior to humans and make less mistakes, or is it OK for a computer to be tricked by something some humans would also not detect?

Btw. I think I can tell if there is a real stop-sign or something on a billboard after some 'huh'-moment and without slamming on the brakes. And humans still go circles around AI regarding plausibility-checking very out-of-the-ordinary events.

[mjburgess]

It's neither.

Self-driving cars aren't superior.

There is 1 death in 100 million miles driven on roads; self-driving cars are currently operating around 1 death per million.

Personally, I do not expect self-driving cars this century to get anywhere near human safety levels (assuming cities/etc. remain as-is).

[justanotherhn]

You want to drop some links to back up your claims?

[mjburgess]

Just a quick google of my comment yields: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...

and

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/17/18564501/self-driving-c...

I haven't read it all -- my numbers come from another paper, I can't recall. But it's talking in the right ballparks.

[542354234235]

It isn’t either/or. One system can be overall superior another and that system can have different vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Cars are generally considered better than horses for transport, but cars also cannot use grass for fuel.