I've read about the cruse team, and "extremely casual attitude to product testing" does not accurately describe what they are doing. The cruse vehicles have a much lower and less severe accident rating than human drivers, and have logged millions of road miles without seriously injuring anyone (until now).
Unlike a certain narcissistic auto manufacturers owner…
Oh, did they actually release data and had an independent research group analyse it? Or is this a statement from their PR department? It's easy to be better than the average human driver if you only drive in good weather and well built roads.
Tesla always makes big claims about how safe it is, but to the best of my knowledge never actually released any usable data about it. It would be awesome if cruise did that.
'Less shit than the average human at it' is a really low bar to set for modern computers, even if Tesla fails at that poor standard and Cruise is currently top of the game. We still need much higher bars when we're talking about entirely automated systems which are controlling speedy large chunks of metal, or even other smaller-scale-impact-and-damage systems. Systems which can't just hop out, ask if the victims are OK, render appropriate first aid, accurately inform emergency services, etc.
The more automation, the higher the standards should be, which means we need to set legal requirements that at least try to scale with he development of technology.
I disagree. Human drivers kill over 40,000 Americans a year. If there’s an alternative that kills less than 40,000 a year we should take it. Ideally mass transit but America seems to like cars.
I wasn't suggesting stopping the development of automated vehicles because it's impossible to have 0 damage. I was advocating having high standards for software/hardware development and real consequences for decision-makers trying to find shortcuts.
Progress and standards are not mutually exclusive.
I've read about the cruse team, and "extremely casual attitude to product testing" does not accurately describe what they are doing. The cruse vehicles have a much lower and less severe accident rating than human drivers, and have logged millions of road miles without seriously injuring anyone (until now).
Unlike a certain narcissistic auto manufacturers owner…
Oh, did they actually release data and had an independent research group analyse it? Or is this a statement from their PR department? It's easy to be better than the average human driver if you only drive in good weather and well built roads.
Tesla always makes big claims about how safe it is, but to the best of my knowledge never actually released any usable data about it. It would be awesome if cruise did that.
'Less shit than the average human at it' is a really low bar to set for modern computers, even if Tesla fails at that poor standard and Cruise is currently top of the game. We still need much higher bars when we're talking about entirely automated systems which are controlling speedy large chunks of metal, or even other smaller-scale-impact-and-damage systems. Systems which can't just hop out, ask if the victims are OK, render appropriate first aid, accurately inform emergency services, etc.
The more automation, the higher the standards should be, which means we need to set legal requirements that at least try to scale with he development of technology.
I disagree. Human drivers kill over 40,000 Americans a year. If there’s an alternative that kills less than 40,000 a year we should take it. Ideally mass transit but America seems to like cars.
I wasn't suggesting stopping the development of automated vehicles because it's impossible to have 0 damage. I was advocating having high standards for software/hardware development and real consequences for decision-makers trying to find shortcuts.
Progress and standards are not mutually exclusive.