Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>if you're going to argue that robots are objectively worse, I'm not so sure.

Robots are becoming worse. I've been living in Mountain View for more than 2 decades, and Waymo cars have been around for years. They never been an issue until recently. I already wrote how several weeks ago our car was almost front-rammed by a Waymo, we had to swerve to avoid it. And recently i saw, and today was myself cut by a Waymo when i was driving in a left turn lane with the Waymo very aggressively crossing the solid white line to get in front of me. I can't remember actual humans cutting it that close, and it was the first time in many years i expressed my frustration by using horn while especially feeling how stupid that horn for AV. That my anecdotal experience much dovetails with some autonomous companies recently stating about increasing of the "assertiveness" of their AVs.

I mean i've been predicting that robots on the battlefield will soon push people out as people can't compete on speed, precision, etc. Yet, it seems that it may happen on public roads faster than on the battlefield. Don't get me wrong, i'm not objecting against such unavoidable robot future (it would be stupid and pointless to object to unavoidable), i just want parity, i.e. the law should allow me to outfit my car with similar (or may be for the old time sake of being a human - with better) sensor and mechanical capabilities and to allow me to for example cut the same way in front of humans and robots like those robots do.



>i just want parity, i.e. the law should allow me to outfit my car with similar (or may be for the old time sake of being a human - with better) sensor and mechanical capabilities and to allow me to for example cut the same way in front of humans and robots like those robots do.

Human drivers kill ~40,000 people a year in the USA. The last thing we need to do is enable humans to drive even more aggressively. Soon it wont make any sense to allow humans to drive at all, just like we currently don't allow them to drive while impaired.


Dragging out a number like that is entirely useless and makes me think you are being disingenuous.

Instead go find the accidents per 100,000 miles driven. Then make sure it takes into account that the robots only drive in fair whether places like California and Phoenix.

I think you might actually be correct in your argument but the evidence you have brought for it is poor.


I’m not certain I’d go out of my way to avoid a collision caused by a robot car owned by a billion dollar company.


Instinct. Amygdala evolved way before FANG.


If avoiding the collision with the robot increases the risk of colliding with a human the right thing to do is plow right into that robot. Same as if an animal surprised you directly in front of your vehicle. If you swerve you are taking on risk that you don't need to.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: