> People are asking for it not to drive full-speed into obvious obstacles.

But isn't this a weird criterion? An obvious obstacle for a human might not be obvious to the computer -- but importantly, it could be the other way around too: the computer detects obstacles that are obvious to it, but a human would miss.

Shouldn't the goal be that the computer considers more obstacles obvious than the human?

I get the emotional argument that it's hard to convince a person off the street of this, but isn't HN a place for more nuanced debate?

It seems like you're debating the meaning of "obvious" -- "What is obvious? And to whom?" My meaning was, "obvious to a skilled, attentive, unimpaired human."

> Shouldn't the goal be that the computer considers more obstacles obvious than the human?

That would be excellent, as long as it's correct :)

In my view, the question should be whether it's more or less safe than humans driving. If use of automated driving results in less death than humans driving, considered at the broadest possible scale, then that strikes me as an excellent outcome. Instead, each and every death under autopilot results in all the hens clucking as though it's proof the technology has failed. That's ridiculous.

>The average driver is 1/3 distracted and 1/4 drunk.

Kinda curious where you are getting those numbers from.

> The average driver is 1/3 distracted and 1/4 drunk.

It seems to me the point is that an automated driver is never distracted and never drunk. The automated systems should get credit for that. That is, they should not necessarily be compared to a skilled, attentive, unimpaired driver. That is, as you admit, not the current state of affairs. Relative to the status quo, automated driving is becoming much safer.

>... must be at least as good as a skilled, attentive, unimpaired driver...

... dealing with motorcycles.

I don't care if it's 25% better than the public for non-motorcycles if it's an AI-powered cager.