Of course it’s superior because humans are in the loop!
Listen to yourself. What is your argument here? Because humans sometimes make choices you find abhorrent, therefore it is better for humans to make machines that behave abhorrently instead? This is like saying killing someone is more moral when you hire a hitman to do it for you.
How is it lame to say there should always be someone to blame? How is that BS? You are making an point that seems to have no logical connection to your premise.
It seems to me that moral decisions, whether made to your personal standard or not, must morally remain in the hands of humans. Otherwise, we are saying to ourselves that morality improves when people turn away from reality, ignore facts, embed themselves in fantasy.
It’s perfectly reasonable to decide that a certain level of danger is acceptable in return for some personal or societal benefit. In a just and reasonable society, we must have mechanisms for revisiting and adjusting that calculus, and we must create mechanisms that incentivize responsible behavior. What frightens me about self-driving cars is that instead of a car accident being a dispute between people, it’s now a dispute among corporations. Accountability is diffused and nullified. And to adjust that system requires glacially slow congressional action.
I don’t mind that premature death can happen. My sister died in a car crash in 1985. One thing that made it tolerable is that we knew how it happened and why it happened. The people involved were people who had put themselves at risk in knowable, reasonable ways. My sister wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. It was the middle of a snow storm. The other driver had misjudged the curve. Head on collision. Tragic, but acceptable.
With self-driving cars, your safety is fully in the thrall of inscrutable and unknowable factors, controlled by people who are not themselves at any risk. THAT should offend you.
Please don't cross into personal attack or swipes, and please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. You can make your substantive points without any of that.
What if requiring meat in the loop necessarily means more human suffering? Maybe you're not offended as long as there's someone to blame, but I'm offended at the unnecessary additional human suffering.
Listen to yourself. What is your argument here? Because humans sometimes make choices you find abhorrent, therefore it is better for humans to make machines that behave abhorrently instead? This is like saying killing someone is more moral when you hire a hitman to do it for you.
How is it lame to say there should always be someone to blame? How is that BS? You are making an point that seems to have no logical connection to your premise.
It seems to me that moral decisions, whether made to your personal standard or not, must morally remain in the hands of humans. Otherwise, we are saying to ourselves that morality improves when people turn away from reality, ignore facts, embed themselves in fantasy.
It’s perfectly reasonable to decide that a certain level of danger is acceptable in return for some personal or societal benefit. In a just and reasonable society, we must have mechanisms for revisiting and adjusting that calculus, and we must create mechanisms that incentivize responsible behavior. What frightens me about self-driving cars is that instead of a car accident being a dispute between people, it’s now a dispute among corporations. Accountability is diffused and nullified. And to adjust that system requires glacially slow congressional action.
I don’t mind that premature death can happen. My sister died in a car crash in 1985. One thing that made it tolerable is that we knew how it happened and why it happened. The people involved were people who had put themselves at risk in knowable, reasonable ways. My sister wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. It was the middle of a snow storm. The other driver had misjudged the curve. Head on collision. Tragic, but acceptable.
With self-driving cars, your safety is fully in the thrall of inscrutable and unknowable factors, controlled by people who are not themselves at any risk. THAT should offend you.