I would like to respectfully disagree with you here. While I believe that self driving cars are infinitely better than human drivers, in this case I'd exercise caution. The issue here is that the vehicle is not fully self-driving–it still requires a human to be paying attention. The problem is that the system appears to be automatic and as such reduces the driver's focus; I've heard stories of people simply tuning out while this "autopilot" on, not knowing that they must be alert for any exceptional circumstances. In this case, the autopilot may actually make it slightly less safe–not from its inherent design, but by human psychology.

if the driver allows themselves to lose focus, they are just bad drivers. autopilot won't change that. what it will do is reduce the number of collisions by people who are shitty drivers and are currently driving unprotected.

the data already demonstrates that autopilot reduces collisions and fatalities. to argue that it doesn't put you in league with climate change deniers.

> if the driver allows themselves to lose focus, they are just bad drivers

This needs empirical support. All of us are human, and are susceptible to false senses of security. Most of us are not good at assessing real-world risks and probabilities. If the autopilot software is good enough to drive the car successfully for months on end, drivers will start to trust it. It will be very hard to stay vigilant and aware, with eyes on the road at all times and an alertness level on par with manual driving.

In other words, an otherwise “good” driver can easily be lulled into complacency by a system that’s really good, but not perfect. It’s an uncanny valley that is worth discussing.

its only worth discussing if you can prove it exists. you've just offered supposition, not fact.

the fact that safety features such as seatbelts and airbags save lives is undeniable. they didn't lead to uncanny valleys of complacency for anyone but drivers who chose to abuse those features with wreckless driving. the data for AP already indicates this trend will continue with ML drivers.

I never claimed anything more than supposition. I think these autopilot features are probably a net safety gain. But that's just a gut feeling.

I think his concern is that it's unsafe because you might trust it when you weren't supposed to because it's too complicated to figure out who's in control at any moment.

However, since the number of features is quite small, I'm sure owners will quickly get used to what the car does and doesn't do. The autopark and summon is surely going to run over far fewer children than human drivers do in those situations. That leaves just adaptive cruise control and lane changing. Well, if you forget to change lanes because you trusted the car, you still won't crash since the front crash detection (and your eyes) should protect you from that. So I don't see any safety issue there.

The difference between autopilot and examples you mentioned is that autopilot can decrease safety. If it works correctly 99.9% of the time, you get used to it and when 0.1% arrive you will cause accident, because you weren't paying attention.

The airplanes of this world demonstrate this.

IMHO airplanes demonstrate the exact opposite. A plane can not only potentially fly the entire flight path on its own, it can also autonomously land. The reason why pilots still hand fly planes is 1) because the whole process is not automatic and you are still receiving directions from an ATC, and 2) to keep their proficiency in controlling the plane.

Numerous times I've seen pilots complain that their employer requires autopilot to be used wherever possible, while they would like to fly the plane by themselves occasionally.

If we polished off the autopilot to also handle take-off and taxi, and installed it in every single plane that exists, I'm pretty sure the entire aviation industry could be completely automated.

Airplanes generally somewhat safer than driving. By quite a margin.

Without consulting the literature, it just seems easy to believe that machine-like consistency 99.9% of the time is more important to safety than confusion in the 0.1%.

It really depends on what 0.1%.

If the car fails to detect one in a thousand cars in front of you, or one in a thousand corners, I can see that being highly dangerous.

Let's say you change lane 5 times while commuting. That's 50 times per week. Now, are you going to pay attention well enough that you catch it twice a year just before it pulls out right into another car?

Perhaps likening it to having another person driving you would be good. If you were given a perfect chauffeur, except with the knowledge that they'll drive straight through one in a thousand red lights with no warning, are you confident you'll catch them?

That may well not be a decrease in safety, considering how poorly most people drive.

the same can be said for the examples i gave. if you get used to being vaccinated but forget your boosters before traveling to a new part of the world, should you have forgone your vaccinations altogether? of course not. if you have technology that makes it safer to drive 99.9% of the time but you expect it to cover for you when you're not paying attention, should you disregard the benefits of the other 99.9% of the time?

This is not a good analogy. Being vaccinated is strictly better than not being vaccinated, even if you don’t get your boosters. It’s not settled yet whether a three-nines level of automation is strictly better than zero automation. It’s entirely possible that this level of automation is good enough to convince most users of its infallibility, but not good enough to reduce the statistical accident or fatality rate.

Perfectly safe 99.9% and highly dangerous the other 0.1% may be overall more hazardous than human-level safe 100% of the time. Or it may not. I’m not making a claim either way. But it’s not a crazy notion that it may not be.

More data is needed. I’m cool with that data being collected in the real world with real drivers. Gotta crack some eggs...

more data IS needed. but some automation is indeed better than no automation. this has been settled time and time again. computers are more accurate, more precise, and don't get tired, sick, or drunk.

Are you new to Naysayer News?