You're jumping to a quantitative comparison because that's simpler and more obvious, but the right way to think about it is qualitatively.
We have over half a century of understanding of modern human driving patterns. We know the ceiling on the number of accidents/deaths that humans will cause. We know that if it changes, it will change slowly.
AI works differently. An update to code or models wipes out all expectations we've learned from prior versions.
In short, the entire fleet of autonomous vehicles can change behavior overnight with a software update and become murder tanks.
Nothing will ever happen to all human drivers at once. Some small percentage will be drunk at any given time. We'll never all wake up with a new drunk version of ourselves at the same time.
I don't mean to say that autonomous technology could never work in principal. But we know that this SV in practice has too much hubris and too little oversight to deploy sensitive products responsibly, or with attention to any values above profit and growth.
We have a lot of precedent at this point on how to handle new ambiguous human advancements. Typically it goes, discovery, wild west, blood, regulation, standard part of society. Rinse and repeat.
any change is significant, even the smallest, not just due to the possible bugs, but also because of the potential risks/side effects that can occur during the update + patching process of the car. regulation will need to have automated driving go back to waterfall style deployments that get applied by a licensed mechanic.
until such regulation is in place, i recommend not driving during the last/first weeks of Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4, as dev teams will be rushing OTA patches in order to complete their projects.
Oh man would I love that, but our legal system makes this nearly impossible, especially when combined with car culture.
It's a guaranteed way to reduce pollution, improve happiness and health, save lives, etc etc etc. But it is easier to solve computer vision than go get cities to ban cars.
I understand the attractiveness of the walk-able city to some. I hope you (and other of your kind) can come to accept that there are others that have different needs for living space.
Is this some sort of weird projection? My preferred way of life is legally banned, and you want to keep it banned, so you assume I want to ban your way of life?
Furthermore, the more of my lifestyle, which is compact, the easier it is to maintain empty space that you prefer.
Clearly you view me as an enemy, but I do not view you as one. I do not wish to make your way of life illegal, and only expressed a view that my preferred way of life should be legal.
I am flabbergasted by your comment, honestly.
It is a comment on a lack of empathy for different way of living. I don't want to ban your preferred way of living as long as it does not pollute my night sky with light, block my sun, or keep my from traveling to where I want, when I want.
> Clearly you view me as an enemy, but I do not view you as one. I do not wish to make your way of life illegal, and only expressed a view that my preferred way of life should be legal.
No, I do not see you as an enemy either. this is a conversation with lots of nuances that are lost. I believe the loss of nuance has led people pro and con on the 15 min city model to be hostile to the opposing view. I'm trying to find a way to say, I support you having your 15 minute model, I hope you will support my not wanting it or at the least, don't force it on me.
I am assuming that when you say your way of life is legally banned, you are referring to zoning regulations. Changing zoning regs means you are going to need to become part of your local government. I suggest you go to planning board meetings. Listen a lot, ask polite, questions. Remember these people are not getting paid enough for all the shit they get thrown at them. No matter what decision they make, somebody will be in their face about it. Please remember, it I'm not your enemy, most of them are not either.
Once they get to know you, volunteering for subcommittees will give you experience for dealing with town/city government. Then you can have a shot at a planning board seat and have the knowledge to make effective change.
zoning laws only change from the inside. so, get on the inside, and make change happen!
You assumed that I had zero empathy and wanted to get rid of your way of life, on what evidence? Merely because I could conceive of a lifestyle that didn't depend on cars?
Your comments on zoning are incredibly naive. It's not just zoning, it's building code like parking requirements, etc. It's the entire legal structure, culture, and attitude of those with power. I am involved in multiple different dues paying organizations that work to change zoning (not for my dream of a car-free neighborhood, but other reasons), and changing zoning is not the work of a motivated individual, it's the work of teams of highly organized volunteers working to provide some sort of alternative to the hoards of angry residents that harass city employees, yell, and become the most unpleasant people at the mere though of more neighbors.
The creation of a car-free neighborhood is a legal effort that is an order of magnitude more difficult than getting a zoning change. There are so many roadblocks.
That's why it's easier to solve computer vision than it is to create a car free neighborhood. The legal system is welcoming to entirely new cars with computer drivers. It is not yet ready to accommodate car-free neighborhoods.
on zoning: parking Requirements: defined by zoning regulations
legal structure: built to enforce existing zoning regulations
General Building code: 99% driven by safety and good engineering practice. Usually most of the building codes come from standard-setting organizations such as the National Fire Prevention Association. https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards. Many municipalities accept these regulations as is because some have been sued for not following published building codes when something fails and somebody dies.
attitude of those with power: get into the power structure in the way they'll accept, get elected and then you have the power.
Need for teams of people: you underestimate the impact of very small number of people can have on regulation at the municipal level.
Angry horde: that will not change until you shift the Overton window on their perception in a nonconfrontational way. this is why I advocate for starting with rebuilding the urban core with high density living space. You can sell it to them much more easily because:
it doesn't threaten their environment, it wouldn't increase car traffic, it wouldn't significantly increase load on the city core, increase the development of more entertainment offerings in the core.
for me, where the biggest wins would be getting rid of the crappy old slumlord housing. It breaks my heart to see kids with almost no exposure to nature living in housing surrounded by asphalt. That's another thing about bulk housing, the green spaces usually manicured patches of grass that you can't play on. This should be big patches of native plants and places where kids can get dirty on clean soil. Maybe even an embedded community garden. Most importantly, don't light the place up like it was Times Square.
In a nearby city, there was a significant disaster in trying to increase housing density. They chose to go the ADU route. Because it violated all of the rules I laid out above, there was a massive citizen uprising and rejection of this plan.
Your bigger barrier is going to be commercial groups. I've seen astronomy groups trying to get in place Light pollution control regulation at the state level. A single local lighting manufacturer has managed to spike that regulation every single time for the past 15 years. On the other hand, individuals have been successful at putting in light pollution control measures into local building codes.
Hear me clearly. Single individuals have made these changes happen. How? By getting to know the people in the planning board, being polite, nonconfrontational, presenting clear rational information and most importantly not being dogmatic rigid advocates. Individuals or small (2-3) Groups of individuals have been successful in changing conservation Board attitudes and regulations that accepted by the planning board.
I wrote what I did because of practical real-world examples. my experience is very different from what you have described so far. since your approach isn't working, would you consider a different approach?
Suburban voters generally want the urban core to both be easily drivable to, but also full of life and culture. This is a contradiction that city officials are always trying to compromise on, instead of simply acting according to the wishes of the urbanites living there.
I understand your point your point about suburbanites wanting the best of both worlds. You are right at city leaders should take care of their own populations first and not try to accommodate suburbanites beyond making it easy to park their cars on the outskirts of the city and take public transit in.
regarding city life and culture, my partner and I used to live near a major city and it was so stressful driving 5 miles to events in the city or taking slower public transit that we stopped going to city events and looked outward to events outside of the major city.
When I lived by myself and fairly close to the city, I would drive part way and and then take public transit to an outdoor concert. I stopped going because of the size of crowds, people not being quiet so others can listen to the music, and security was obnoxious and all for show. Same thing with a Shakespeare in the Park event. Too much noise, couldn't hear the actors and it was just not worth the effort.
we now live in a much quieter, less people dense place and for us it's a much better quality of life.
"It will only encourage the lower classes to move about, and this is certainly too big of a step." -- The Duke of Wellington, on railroads.
it also never gets bug free
And never is held responsible, never compensates its victims and never gets punished.
It's anybody's guess. No one knows who will be held responsible. I find it difficult to imagine a so-called "tech" company accepting responsibility for damages, injury or death caused by software, but who knows.
In the one case so far in AZ, Uber was not held criminally liable. Instead an Uber driver plead guilty to negligent homicide. Uber quickly settled the civil case with the victim's family. The amount of the settlment is not public information.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/backup...
https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/29/technology/uber-fatal-crash...
In fact that is exactly the point of the article, we shouldn't fall into the trap of not worrying about deaths for AI just because we have deaths from humans.
After all part of the problem with human deaths is we consider it normal. If we can avoid that trap with AI we can ensure we do better.
We do not need to sacrifice safety for progress. We don't need mad scientists in the real world. Sanity leads to better results. It doesn't pump the stock price all that well, though.
If you want to be free from cars, build walkable and carless cities people can afford and want to move to. We can then discuss sunsetting mass automobile infra (which is very unlikely, although infra spending can be weighted to more efficient urban development, mass transit, bicycle infra, etc vs automobile centric systems). Until then, the need for autonomous vehicles is an inconvenient truth.