[danans]

Most states and communities aren't ok with unproven AVs on their streets causing accidents and injuries, even if they are superficially politically aligned with the AV manufacturer's CEO.

That's a good thing, we shouldn't be lowering the bar for AVs.

[ls612]

There’s a chicken and egg issue with this in that to become proven the AV needs to drive somewhere for a while.

[danans]

> to become proven the AV needs to drive somewhere for a while.

There's a straightforward solution to this that doesn't compromise public safety:

Employ paid training drivers who monitor the AV while it is collecting training data in environments where it does not yet meet the safety bar. These drivers are paid to be observant and intervene to avoid accidents. Furthermore, in their interventions, these training drivers provide critical training data used to improve the system.

[ls612]

Uber did exactly that and got excoriated when the paid driver was on her phone and the car killed someone on the freeway. I think many people raising are concern trolling this because they either don’t want private cars in favor of public transportation or because they are luddites towards automation of driving jobs.

[danans]

> Uber did exactly that and got excoriated when the paid driver was on her phone and the car killed someone on the freeway.

This is what Waymo does also.

Perhaps Uber should have been more careful whom they hire, or put stronger controls on what they are allowed to do in the car.

[kortilla]

AVs already exceed the quite low bar for humans. The real crux is liability when they screw up.

[potato3732842]

They exceed the minimum viable human driver. They're some combination of a teenager and grandma. They generally get where they're going safely but anyone who's not a minimum viable driver is cringing pretty often.

Nobody wants to let a minimum viable driver chauffeur them around every day. Accepting the reduced quality of performance and increased risk a short duration cab ride is another story.