Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgetfreeman | Hacker News Reader

Ah yes, it is clearly incumbent upon all other industries to modify their practices to pave over the gross deficiencies of self-driving cars.

View on HN

It's fine by me if self-driving cars need help and get it, so long as the technology is beneficial. I think it is.

Ok, on what grounds is technology that performs a job that humans can generally do better at beneficial in the broad sense? That it's benefitting a handful of individuals who profit off eliminating jobs isn't in question, but where's the upside for the rest of us?

The upside is that automobile crashes kill >30,000 people in the US alone and self-driving cars may one day bring that number down by 90%

Might they? Is that a purely faith-based assertion or is that claim grounded in anything? Because current performance suggests otherwise.

Current performance definitely does not suggest otherwise! Over Waymo's first million miles, it was involved in two collisions, one of them at-fault. The average for human drivers is 5.3 collisions per million miles.

Oh no you don't. Waymo describes it's tech as Level 4 automation. That is an explicit statement that it underperforms human capabilities and has only been greenlit for -very- limited areas and conditions. Industry reports on the subject suggest Level 5 autonomy won't be possible for at least the next 12 years, which is synonymous with saying the industry currently has no idea how to get there.

It doesn't matter if it's only greenlit for limited areas and conditions -- just use them where they work! Don't use them where they don't!

Enormous amounts of time are wasted commuting. The passengers benefit from self driving cars, not just the auto maker.

So you're saying a handful of randos having a little spare time to catch up on Reddit during their commute is a net plus trade for putting mediocre operators on the road? That's definitely a take.

"A little spare time" is more than two hours a day for a lot of people.

That's a lot of Reddit.

If they don't end up distracting incessantly with ads

For me it's safety (each problem solved gets applied to others, but it could be more profound than that, like chess AIs) and potential to decide on the fly whether to have something similar to a rental car or a much lower rate. For instance maybe I could know a car would be waiting for me and leave my backpack behind while I go on a hike. Plus environmental and city planning hopes.

My mom (who is legally blind) wouldn't have to resort to driving herself to her doctors appointments when myself and my brother are unable to due to work.

Properly marking a construction zone isn't a change in practice - it's already required. But that doesn't mean it was done properly in this case.

If a construction zone is unmarked, human drivers are more likely to drive into it as well.

Anyway, AI cars should be smart enough to "see" a potential unmarked construction zone, just as most humans can. I'm only saying construction zones should be marked explicitly for the safety of all involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com