|
|
|
|
|
|
by rjd
4483 days ago
|
|
|
"The author's argument against automation in these life-saving contexts is weak." I think you missed the point of the article. Its not that existence of automation is bad, its the implementation of it that (in a lot of cases) is wanting, useless, distracting, or even detrimental to the items purpose. |
|
|
If we accept the author's argument that a human driver can't watch over an automated car, the question becomes fairly black-and-white: do we rule out the driver or rule out the automated vehicle?
Within this rigid self-imposed framework, the author seems to choose Option B: ruling out vehicle automation. Throughout this post (in the aircraft analogy, for instance), he notes the importance of human supervision.
To this, I say, Where is the evidence that human-supervised vehicles are safer than fully automated cars? Where is the evidence that humans are better equipped than good software to react to split-second emergencies?
The only point in favor of human drivers is that we have more stats to describe them, but the stats are horrific. By contrast, Google's autonomous cars have logged over 300,000 miles in various conditions without an accident (minus getting rear-ended by a human driver).