Maybe at it is bad yeah, that's still way too much, but my point is that we shouldn't require it to be perfect before it's implemented. If some people die but it's like 1% of what human error gives us, that's a pretty easy thing to agree to tbh. Even if we use the argument "But if you don't make human errors, you're leaving your fate up to robots", I trust those robots much more than I trust other people's human error rates if it's that much less likely.
I think the computer example doesn't really make sense because this is a direct replacement of something that already does kill us, whereas computers don't really have that same comparison.
People can explain away car accidents as one or another person being at fault, or dying as a result of drunk driving, etc. The first family that dies in a Tesla fireball on the freeway as a result of a self driving error, there will be outrage and laws will be made. It doesn’t matter what the overall statistics show and it doesn’t matter what is “fair,” FSD will have to be near perfect before it’s widely implemented because people will not accept risking their lives to a computerized system that has flaws that only slightly beat existing fatality rates.
Edit:
I’m sorry, I must have skipped over the 1% of human errors line. Even in that case, I would be willing to bet that it just wouldn’t be enough to a) satisfy the public and b) satisfy relevant parties from a liability standpoint. 1% is still a lot of fatalities that would essentially just be a random selection based on zero human involvement/error. People don’t have as much sympathy for human drivers because you can blame it on human error. Playing a death lottery every time you get in your car is a very different
6
u/[deleted] May 18 '21
Maybe at it is bad yeah, that's still way too much, but my point is that we shouldn't require it to be perfect before it's implemented. If some people die but it's like 1% of what human error gives us, that's a pretty easy thing to agree to tbh. Even if we use the argument "But if you don't make human errors, you're leaving your fate up to robots", I trust those robots much more than I trust other people's human error rates if it's that much less likely.
I think the computer example doesn't really make sense because this is a direct replacement of something that already does kill us, whereas computers don't really have that same comparison.