How much safer must they be 'per mile driven' to be acceptable by society?
2x, 10x, 50x, 100x?
If it's 10x or higher then it would almost certainly need to take into account edge cases like a dog owner waving down a car.
2x, 10x, 50x, 100x?
If it's 10x or higher then it would almost certainly need to take into account edge cases like a dog owner waving down a car.
it's tough to hold onto it (as a human) when you're being threatened and/or injured/maimed/killed by robots.
the idea of yelling at a robot and having it ignore you is pretty fucked up, especially if it's squeezing your coworker to death, or running a dog (or human) over, etc.
Both Cruise and Waymo have an exceptional ability to detect collisions and brake immediately, to the point where regular users tugging on a door handle unexpectedly can immobilize a car.
"Human dignity" suffers much more when a human kills a pedestrian through sheer carelessness, or a child dies in an entirely preventable crash.
It's tough to hold onto human dignity if you're dead or maimed because a car hit you. If we can reduce the number of people who are dead or maimed by cars by introducing self-driving ones, why would we not do that? Why is it better to live in a world where more people are dead or maimed and humans are driving than one in which fewer people are dead or maimed and cars are self-driving?
> the idea of yelling at a robot and having it ignore you is pretty fucked up
So what about the inattentive driver looking at their phone? You yell at them, they don't hear you because they're in a car and it's loud, and they hit you and severely injure you. Is that not fucked up?
We're not, so let's say more than that, but it certainly shouldn't be 10x. If you have the ability to replace a car that kills 2 people per 100,000 miles driven (not a real number, just an example) with a car that kills 1 person per 100,000 miles driven, and you don't do that, you're needlessly causing a bunch of people to die.