[reddytowns]

The main point is still valid. In an emergency situation, as long as a self driving car has to choose between hitting a ball and a kid chasing after it, or a woman and a shopping cart, or a laid down motorcycle and its rider, and not know which is which, there is no way these cars can be deployed in mass. And this is an extremely hard problem.

[icoder]

I for one don't trust myself with that judgement call either (given the expected very short timeframe you have available).

For example, avoiding the kid that appears out of no where might crash me into an upcoming car, killing that driver while the kid in the corner of my eye turned out to be a dog or in fact stopped/retreated just in time to prevent a collision in the first place. Your fastest reflexes bypass a big part of your brain.

As long as the cars drive safer, on average, than we do (and I think that's achievable), rationally we should hand over the controls (or we should find a way to combine both and end up even safer).

[jfoster]

One might make the same argument about the cars we have now. If we cannot guarantee that there will be no deadly accidents, they cannot be deployed in such great numbers. Yet, car accidents are a major cause of death, and almost everyone drives one regularly.

[tfinniga]

In an emergency situation, just stop. Don't hit the ball or the kid. Let the human take over, or wait for the emergency to pass. The car will break faster than a human could. If the car can't drive itself safely in a given situation, make humans drive.

There are valid points to be made about liability and legal concerns, increases in road congestion, etc. But technical considerations are not really an issue.

You don't need to completely solve all potential problems before entering the market. You just need to provide enough value.

If you've got an hour commute over highways every day, even being able to do highway driving automatically will be a huge win.

[marvy]

That's usually the right answer, but you have to be careful. For instance, you say the car will break faster than a human could. But if it does, the human-driven car right behind it is in trouble.

[tfinniga]

Yes, you'd want to have some sort of sensors behind the car as well, so that if it's possible to avoid hitting the object and avoid being hit by the car that you would brake at that speed. If it's not possible, well, it's still an improvement over a human driver.

[thrill]

People "often" (for made up values of often) hit kids instead of balls bouncing into the street, as their eyes are drawn to the ball and never notice the kids scampering after it. A machine can be given enough resources to have the scan of a tree full of owls - no single driver can.