borplefark

>the kid

We're talking about millions of people. When you get to scale that large, you are talking about society and culture, not individual choices. To have millions of people change their behavior is to change the society and culture.

the only difference is you need code + data. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible to understand deep learning

>But must the standard for safety be higher than existing human drivers

Yes. Imagine that it crashes with the same average incidence rate as humans. Humans are imperfect creatures. They break the law. Let's even say that only 1% of crashes involve someone breaking the law (intoxicated, no licence etc). If the car is only on par with humans, then the car is only able to match a law abiding citizen 99% of the time.

You could argue that the car is basically driving buzzed. We have laws that would arrest 1 out of every 100 of those humans, but what would we do to the algorithm? What sort of punishment could you do to it when it messes up?

Your rant makes no sense. I flip a coin 100 times and it comes up tails 99 times. You are basically saying that asking "Is the coin more likely to come up tails" isn't a real scientific question. That's just silly.