[quadrifoliate]

See? You can visualize flaws with these kind of simple systems fairly quickly, don't you think similar ones exist in the purportedly "self-driving" cars?

There are literally millions of situations where a Tesla might do the wrong thing, and some of them have been caught on camera.

If we can't put speed limiters on cars, we definitely shouldn't be putting highly complicated computers in charge with no humans at the wheel.

[shkkmo]

> If we can't put speed limiters on cars, we definitely shouldn't be putting highly complicated computers in charge with no humans at the wheel.

This argument makes no sense.

How do obvious edgecases invalidating a simple solution have any bearing on the feasibility of a complex solution being able to handle as many edgecases as a human driver?

[jazzyjackson]

I think the point is more of a bikeshedding problem: people are more willing to accept “AI” because they are not knowledgeable enough to come up with a counter-example, whereas given a simple automation like “don’t go above the speed limit” any joe on the street can think of why that’s a problem.

But AI is not magic, its just more rules.