Hacker News Reader

> The former is still strictly safer.

I find this to be an absolutely ridiculous statement. Software as we know it today is incredibly brittle. What will eventually be put on the road as fully autonomous vehicular control software will have been HEAVILY QA'ed, and will be continuously QAed by telemetry. Random people modifying that software invalidate any proof-of-safety from the upstream QA and monitoring processes.

View on HN

Random people manually driving their cars are "modifying" their input as well.

You have drunk drivers, texting drivers, distracted drivers....

The human attention span is incredibly brittle as well.

In terms of QA'ing a manual driver in the US? You take a 10 minute driving test when you're 16 and you're licensed to drive for the rest of your life.

> The human attention span is incredibly brittle as well. I think that's sort of proving their point? Like the point should be to replace brittleness with reliability, not replicate it with software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com