[entee]

I'm not sure what you're arguing in terms of acceptable risk. Biotech is incredibly regulated, specifically because the risks are so high, effectively there is very little acceptable risk. In biotech, a patient dying due to your drug is a Big Problem that will at best cause you to put a disclaimer on the package (see Black Box Warning) and at worst immediately end your drug's prospects. We can argue about trade-offs (if you've got terminal cancer, maybe a rare heart event is a worthwhile risk, probably less so if you have a rash), but this is exactly the way it should be.

Self driving cars are a nice luxury, especially in city driving, not something that radically improves our world. You get to read your phone instead of paying attention, and the trade-off is someone might get killed. It's like treating a rash with a drug that could give you a heart attack. That's a far cry from, "with this technology something that took days and $$$$ now takes hours and $" as was the case with all the older examples you listed.

If self driving cars were more like airplanes, I'd have a little more faith. Tesla's marketing BS doesn't inspire me with lots of faith.

On black boxes: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-does-it-mean-if-my-m...

[grumple]

> Self driving cars are a nice luxury, especially in city driving, not something that radically improves our world. You get to read your phone instead of paying attention, and the trade-off is someone might get killed. It's like treating a rash with a drug that could give you a heart attack. That's a far cry from, "with this technology something that took days and $$$$ now takes hours and $" as was the case with all the older examples you listed.

This is the opposite of the premise and the conclusion is the total opposite of the goal of self driving cars. A core premise of self driving cars is that they will be far safer than human-driven vehicles. 1.35 million people are killed on roadways every year globally. Saving over a million lives a year means a lot. The technology isn't quite there yet, but it is likely that it will be and the promise is quite real. It's not like Tesla's are killing people at a significantly higher rate than regular drivers with Autopilot - which does not seem to be true [1].

1. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

[bumby]

There are plenty of resources that demonstrate why those statistics can be misleading. Chief among them, not all miles are created equal. It’s like claiming autopilot in airplanes is significantly safer than ape-controlled aircraft. It’s partly true because apes control the hard parts (takeoff and landing) and leave the more easy parts to software

[judge2020]

> It’s like claiming autopilot in airplanes is significantly safer than ape-controlled aircraft. It’s partly true because apes control the hard parts (takeoff and landing) and leave the more easy parts to software

That's because the term "autopilot" is badly named, both in cars and in aircraft. People just thing autopilot in aircraft means "plane flies itself" because they get on a jetliner and never see the pilot actually control it, leaving the impression that some combination of magic and electricity-infused rocks got them there instead of a human with assistive software.

[grumple]

Those statistics are pretty relevant when it comes to fatalities, which are more likely to occur at highway speeds. Total accidents, yes, self driving cars aren't generally operating in city traffic yet. Those same resources will note that the most common accident for Teslas is being rear-ended by another vehicle, which is also relevant.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this technology is under active development, with a theoretical target being eliminating the vast majority of car-related deaths. Nobody is arguing that it's already superior, though it may already be close in certain circumstances.

[bumby]

That’s the thing though. Those statistics aren’t showing that level of rigor. They aren’t even saying “miles driven at highway speeds”, just “miles with autopilot engaged”.

They don’t control for things like vehicle age. They don’t control for safety features, or even for driver assisting software control. They aren’t comparing driving conditions. They aren’t comparing driving duration. There aren’t comparing driving speed. They aren’t even from the same datasets. Etc etc.

It’s not a rigorous study but used as if it’s evidence when it’s only slightly better than anecdotal

[judge2020]

It'll probably be best to stick to U.S. statistics because it'll show the statistical difference between manual driving in a modern car and automated driving in a modern car, versus 'globally' which includes cars in countries that aren't designed with the same safety we have and will lag at least a decade behind the US in receiving level 3+ ADAS when it becomes available.

[grumple]

Self driving cars will be sold globally though.

Either way, 40k US deaths per year plus many more injuries is still a lot, even if we only care about the US.

[nexuist]

> You get to read your phone instead of paying attention, and the trade-off is someone might get killed.

You get to drive, and the trade-off is someone might get killed. Your comment almost makes me think you haven't driven a car before, because you would remember the dull terror of seeing your life flash before your eyes for the 40th time this year because some moron ran a red and slammed the brakes in the middle of the intersection you were about to cross.

Until recently motor vehicle accidents were a leading cause of death in the US. Saying that self driving would just be a luxury feature is truly a luxury position compared to those that have lost loved ones to drunk driving, speeding, snow, rain, new drivers, old drivers, blind drivers, and any other of the myriad of ways to get yourself killed on a road. All of which would disappear with level 5 self driving.

> That's a far cry from, "with this technology something that took days and $$$$ now takes hours and $"

Extrapolate the future and realize that once self driving is solved for one vehicle it's solved for all of them, and truck/bus/taxi driving as a profession will go bust. Without having to pay human drivers that also need breaks, pensions, health insurance etc. all these services can offer lower prices.

[bumby]

>All of which would disappear with level 5 self driving.

I think the post was about managing the risk that occurs before level 5 is reached. Assuming that it’s either on the immediate horizon or a foregone conclusion seems to be dismissive of those nascent risks

[entee]

I drive a lot, thanks. If you can prove me level-5 or even very good level 4 autonomous driving, and that a computational driver makes radically fewer fatal mistakes than a human, then I'm with you. In other words, if you can satisfy a good regulatory regime like the say, airplanes or drugs, then great.

Short of that, it's a luxury and a danger.

[judge2020]

The thing is that we're not going to get there if we disallow anything in between 2 and 5 just because it can be a danger when used incorrectly. Level 3 by definition[0] is where the driver can look at their phone until the car/beeps at taps them to start driving again, and we know that system won't be able to tell when it needs to request human intervention perfectly 100% of the time, yet we need to get level 3 systems before anything above it.

0: https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicl...

[foobiekr]

Even autopilot in its current form has proven to be such an attractive nuisance for abuse that there is a market for those stupid steering wheel weights. How can you possibly not appreciate this problem?

[jjav]

> because you would remember the dull terror of seeing your life flash before your eyes for the 40th time this year

Is this really something you go through?

In ~35 years of driving, I've never experienced this.

If you are having near-death driving experiences 40 times per year, something is wrong.

[foobiekr]

Not the OP, and well, it's been a year and a half, but I regularly encountered unguided automotive cruise missiles in my morning drive down 237 in the bay area, with Tesla drivers being _particularly_ bad about sitting there playing with their phones. This is not a "life flashing before your eyes" situation, but it is a "this is very concerning" situation.

[jjav]

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP, but I didn't think they were talking about Tesla drivers paying no attention to the road and being absorbed on the phone, just their own driving experience of getting into near-accidents all the time.

[inglor_cz]

"Self driving cars are a nice luxury, especially in city driving, not something that radically improves our world."

With truly autonomous vehicles, you can have a radically different logistics for goods, delivery services etc. You can also have specialized "sleeper cars" that get you to your destination overnight, fresh and ready.

Self driving cars can also park themselves somewhere out of sight and stop clogging inner cities.

[entee]

I'd agree if it works as advertised. Level 5 or very close to it is the key. No system has shown that, much less Tesla's. In the meantime, doing a live experiment with 3,000+ pound machines moving at 30+ mph seems like a bad idea.

[judge2020]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on what they're referring to. You with "self driving cars are a nice luxury" refers to the current iteration, while the main GP is talking about biotech and self driving cars in terms of the potential they hold, perhaps 15-30 years in the future.

We can't go straight from level 2 to level 4 without some real effort, and it's not exactly helpful when new level 2 systems can't even handle curves[0] or will continue to drive for you when you take your seatbelt off[1].

0: https://youtu.be/GCRNYP5Qg34?t=321

1: https://twitter.com/MinimalDuck/status/1388557772921344005?s...

[hexatin]

> You can also have specialized "sleeper cars" that get you to your destination overnight, fresh and ready.

Trains have had this capability for decades, and that is a very mature technology, with the upside of also carrying far more people at a time than a car-based system would.

[inglor_cz]

I have taken them several times. Prague-Warsaw, Prague-Frankfurt, Vienna-Venezia, Prague-Tatras, Prague-Krakow.

First of all, trains shake a lot. I could at best take hourly naps, it was better than nothing, but far from optimal. The loud proclamations of station speakers whenever you stop somewhere do not help your sleep either.

Second, night trains are a paradise for opportunistic thieves. Yes, it is a solvable problem, but I haven't seen it solved.