Ask HN: Why are we more accepting towards accidents caused by humans vs. by AI?
In 2018, road traffic deaths is at 37k in America.
If a company invented a self driving car that kills 1,000 people a year, it will never gets allowed on the street. Even 100 a year seems high. But it will actually save tens of thousands.
Why are we a lot stricter on self-driving car technology than on humans? Why can't we simply choose the option that saves more life?
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 56.0 ms ] threadPart of the reason is probably because we're still given captchas asking us to identify lights, buses and zebra crossings.
It could also be that it's killing people from a specific bug. A car might be blind to say, someone wearing a black and white shirt, or maybe a green car and 95% ory deaths could be from that.
When someone does harm with his/her car, holds the civil (and sometimes penal) responsability of his own acts and usually cannot do harm more than once in a very small timeframe.
In the case of autonomous IA, the company making/coding the vehicle software will be liable, and the problem is very likely to show again in a short time period.
That makes this kind of companies technically on the verge of bankrupcy because they are a good target for class-action lawsuits.
> to get the same statistical significance we have on human driving
I don't know what this phrase means.