Comment by jobs_throwaway

Comment by jobs_throwaway 3 days ago

> I feel like you have to say this out loud because many people in these discussions don't share this view. Billion dollar corporate experiments conducted in public are sacrosanct for some reason.

Yes, and I find it annoying that some people do seem to think Waymo should never be criticized. That said, we already have an astounding amount of data, and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes. Waymos are absolutely, without question already making streets safer than if humans were driving those cars.

> If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here.

We can and should do both. And as your comment seems to imply but does not explicitly state, we should also improve road design to be safer, which Europe absolutely kicks America's ass on.

johnnyanmac 2 days ago

>data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes.

That's fine. But crashes are relatively rare and what matters is accountability. Will Waymo be accountable for hitting this kid the way a human would? Or will they fight in court to somehow blame the pedestrian? Those are my big concerns when it comes to self driving vehicles, and history with tech suggests that they love playing hot potato instead of being held accountable.

And yes, better walkable infrastructure is a win for all. The minor concern I have is the notion that self driving is perfect and we end up creating even more car centric infrastructure. I'm not sure who to blame on that one.

Reply View 4 replies

BurningFrog 2 days ago

Waymo is driving the car and should be held accountable like any other driver.
I assume that's how it works already.

Reply View | 3 replies
- johnnyanmac 2 days ago
  
  I hope so too. I'll be keeping a close eye on how they handle this, though. My benefit of the doubt for tech was already long drained, and is especially critical for safety critical industries.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  BurningFrog 2 days ago
  
  I think this is more about the legal system than tech credibility.
  That is, I expect that Waymo will be required to pay for accidents they cause, whether they want to or not.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  johnnyanmac 2 days ago
  
  I believe how they navigate the legal system through this will indeed affect their credibility. It's the one channel where you need to be the most honest (if you aren't the government itself), so I hold a lot more weight on that than on PR statements.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

themafia 3 days ago

> and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes

I disagree. You need way more data, like orders of magnitude more. There are trillions of miles driven in the US every year. Those miles often include driving in inclement weather which is something Waymo hasn't even scraped the surface of yet.

> without question

There are _tons_ of questions. This is not even a simple problem. I cannot understand this prerogative. It's far too eager or hopeful.

> We can and should do both

Well Google is operating Waymo and "we" control road policy. One of these things we can act on today and the other relies on huge amounts of investments paying off in scenarios that haven't even been tested successfully yet. I see an environment forming where we ignore the hard problems and pray these corporate overlords solve the problem on their own. It's madness.

Reply View 4 replies

jobs_throwaway 3 days ago

> You need way more data, like orders of magnitude more. There are trillions of miles driven in the US every year.
Absurd, reductive, and non-empirical. Waymos crash and cause injury/fatality far less frequently than human drivers, full stop. You are simply out of your mind if you believe otherwise, and you should re-evaluate the data.
> Those miles often include driving in inclement weather which is something Waymo hasn't even scraped the surface of yet.
Yes. No one is claiming that Waymos are better drivers than humans in inclement weather, because they don't operate in those conditions. That does not mean Waymos are not able to outperform human drivers in the conditions in which they do operate.
> I see an environment forming where we ignore the hard problems and pray these corporate overlords solve the problem on their own. It's madness.
What's madness is your attitude that Waymos' track record does not show they are effective are reducing crashes. And again, working on policy does not prevent us from also improving technology as you seem to believe it does.

Reply View | 0 replies
decimalenough 3 days ago

You're moving the goalposts. The claim is that Waymos are safer than human drivers in the areas and under the conditions where they currently operate.
Yeah, I'm sure Waymos would struggle in a blizzard in Duluth, but a) so would a human and b) Waymos aren't driving there. (Yet.)

Reply View | 2 replies
- themafia 3 days ago
  
  > You're moving the goalposts
  No. I'm not. I'm being realistic about the technology. You're artificially limiting the scope.
  > so would a human
  This is goalpost moving 101. The question isn't would a human driver also struggle but _would it be better_? You have zero data.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  jobs_throwaway 3 days ago
  
  > This is goalpost moving 101. The question isn't would a human driver also struggle but _would it be better_? You have zero data.
  It is not moving the goalpost to say "so would a human". Comparison to human drivers is exactly the stated goalpost (and it should be).
  > You have zero data.
  Outrageously uninformed take. We have mountains of data that show Waymos in aggregate are safer drivers than humans.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies