[notamy]

What is it with people on this website (not specifically the user I’m replying to) and going with "the computer vaguely does the thing the human does, literally what's the difference???" (or similar) as an argument/gotcha/etc. around ML/AI/self-driving/...? It’s painfully obvious that the computer and the human are different systems that process information differently and therefore likely need different sets of inputs for optimal function.

[matwood]

I agree that they are different, but if I read the comment you responded to charitably, it's pointing out that the bar often seems unreasonably high for self driving. Human drivers are terrible leading to ~100 deaths/day in the US. How much better does self-driving need to be in order to make it worthwhile? Does it have to be perfect?

[hermannj314]

The government mandates adding rear view cameras to all cars at a cost of like $1 million dollars per life saved.

There is no rational basis for vehicle safety standards and the outcomes (deaths per passenger mile) show that we are doing a horrible job at it.

Regulating the addition of LIDAR based object detection to all vehicles will have no basis in safety until domestic manufacturers can't compete with imports and they need another expensive component to tack on to every car to narrow the price gap in their incompetence to compete globally. Then there will be a PR campaign, funded by Detroit, about how necessary it is for "safety" to add LIDAR or whatever to every car.

[luma]

It’s counter argument by example. Very Serious Scientists argued that heavier than air flight is impossible while birds were flying outside their window. Likewise, I am 100% confident that it is possible in theory to drive a car without the assistance of LIDAR or RADAR.

Does this mean current systems require this or that? Nope, but making the claim that all systems must be equipped with a certain technology seems short sighted, particularly when the proven counter example is putting a few million miles on the road every day.