Ai drivers have run over and crushed people slowly before too though because they didn’t see the person as an “obstacle” to be avoided, or because they were on the ground, it didn’t see them
And they always will. You need to look at the big picture here, not individual cases. If we replaced every single car on US roads with one driven by AI - proven to be 10 times better a driver than a human - that would still mean 4,000 people getting killed by them each year. That, however, doesn’t mean we should go back to human drivers and 40,000 people killed annually.
I think your logic is flawed. The discussion is about a specific form of transportation. By your own logic, you should be suggesting that people fly everywhere.
For long distance maybe, but immediately saying we should all fly everywhere because it has the fewest deaths per passenger mile would really not be looking at the big picture.
I may have gotten sucked into the .ml user’s what-about-ism, but I started off by just trying to point out the flaw in their logic.
System, personal choice, whatever – it doesn’t really matter because .ml user is trying to spin facts to support their agenda. I don’t know what their agenda is other than just being contentious.
Yes. AI human transformation drones make far more sense. Much easier to avoid things because airspace can be controlled. Just need to figure out how to do efficiently that the ride is more than 5 minutes.
Big picture is AI not being able to operate under unusual conditions means that the “10 times better” (if it were only true) has a big fucking caveat where we can’t say the stat will hold true if we replace all drivers.
Ai drivers have run over and crushed people slowly before too though because they didn’t see the person as an “obstacle” to be avoided, or because they were on the ground, it didn’t see them
And they always will. You need to look at the big picture here, not individual cases. If we replaced every single car on US roads with one driven by AI - proven to be 10 times better a driver than a human - that would still mean 4,000 people getting killed by them each year. That, however, doesn’t mean we should go back to human drivers and 40,000 people killed annually.
By that logic…
We should really be investing in trains and buses, not cars of any type.
I think your logic is flawed. The discussion is about a specific form of transportation. By your own logic, you should be suggesting that people fly everywhere.
For long distance maybe, but immediately saying we should all fly everywhere because it has the fewest deaths per passenger mile would really not be looking at the big picture.
Ah, so you do understand there’s a difference in why someone would chose one type of transportation over another.
But you don’t understand that they’re talking about systems while you’re talking about personal choice.
I may have gotten sucked into the .ml user’s what-about-ism, but I started off by just trying to point out the flaw in their logic.
System, personal choice, whatever – it doesn’t really matter because .ml user is trying to spin facts to support their agenda. I don’t know what their agenda is other than just being contentious.
Meh, you both deserve each other honestly. Too concerned with being right that we all lost focus of what is good.
Yes. AI human transformation drones make far more sense. Much easier to avoid things because airspace can be controlled. Just need to figure out how to do efficiently that the ride is more than 5 minutes.
Big picture is AI not being able to operate under unusual conditions means that the “10 times better” (if it were only true) has a big fucking caveat where we can’t say the stat will hold true if we replace all drivers.