alt Hacker NewsAs it should be. “Safer on average” is not a defense for failing something as basic as stopping at a stop sign. The bar for not running one and killing someone is not unreasonably high.
Replies
I agree; that’s why I think we need a moratorium on human drivers while we figure this all out.
It should be a defense for FSD to exist though, right? Net more alive people.
It should be a critical part of the evaluation. If you set the bar higher than “safer on average” then you’re going to delay the switch, and every month of delay will cost more lives. “Safer on average” is exactly when you should start using the new thing, even if it’s uncomfortable and even if it’s a low bar.
Humans fail to stop at stop signs all the time. Their failure to stop kill people as well.
Safer than average is totally defensible, because every year the margin of what is "average" changes.
I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here, but if say, one person is killed by an automobile every 100m miles, if the next year the average is 0.999 per 100m miles, that's a good thing provided the trend continues. We should not step over a dime to pick up a penny.