10 ms·

No, because you can punish bad drivers, remove them from the driving pool, put them in jail, or in some way achieve justice (this may not always happen, but at

by saulpw 11d ago

No, because you can punish bad drivers, remove them from the driving pool, put them in jail, or in some way achieve justice (this may not always happen, but at least it's posible). There is no way for FSD to have any accountability, and so no justice can be served. "Sorry, your son was just unlucky that he was killed by the AI, but we can't do anything about it" is an intolerable breakdown of justice. Same problem we have with qualified immunity.

maxrev17 11d ago
You can update software though, you can’t update a negligent driver.
- EA-3167 11d ago
  But you can take their license, fine them, jail them. Corporations just pay a fine and move on. I don’t want that to be the standard for road accidents and frankly outside of this techie niche no one does.
srveale 11d ago
"Sorry, the driver could have turned on FSD, but decided to drive [drunk/tired/distracted] and killed your son. Thankfully we can ban them from driving for a while." This could play out a million times at the population level. If you can decrease the chances of needing justice in the first place, shouldn't that be considered?
mvkel 11d ago
What you're talking about is who to blame, not how to keep more people alive.
- datsci_est_2015 11d ago
  “Who to blame” turns out to be one of the most important facets of humanity, and it turns out we structure our entire society around it: assigning liability and pursuing justice. That’s not something that can be handwaved away to technocratically chase a metric (traffic deaths).
  - mvkel 11d ago
    A person needs to die for us to assign liability and pursue justice. If fewer people die, there is no liability to assign. It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. Which yeah, sounds just like us! "This is the way we've always done it!"
    - saulpw 11d ago
      If fewer people die, there is only less liability to assign. Remember that the original argument was "FSD needs to have 0 fatalities before we adopt it". And it's not valid to argue that some traffic fatalities are unavoidable; I know people who work at the DOT and "Vision Zero"[0] is a thing, and already implemented in some European countries/cities. Without FSD. So FSD needs to clear this bar. [0] https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/ https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
    - datsci_est_2015 11d ago
      > It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. God I hate technocracy. There’s a reason we elect politicians and not technologists who think everything is simple and we just aren’t making the technically correct policy decisions. “I’m sorry ma’am, we won’t be investigating anyone for your daughter’s death at the hands of the Sexy Deathmobile 5000 because technically no one is liable. But just think, there would have been so many other children killed this year if we didn’t allow these Sexy Deathmobiles to take over the roads! I hear there’s even a software update that will reduce toddler deaths by 5% at the expense of a 10% rise in dog and raccoon deaths, but it’s a choice our technocratic overlords are ecstatic to implement!” You’re also arguing against a false alternative, which is the status quo. I’d rather have our money put towards safe streets and reducing demand for toddler-bulldozers (cars with raised grills) than a FSD pipe dream that would only enrich a few billionaires and the lucky SWEs who happen to pick the correct company to work for.

by saulpw 11d ago

maxrev17 11d ago

You can update software though, you can’t update a negligent driver.

EA-3167 11d ago
But you can take their license, fine them, jail them. Corporations just pay a fine and move on. I don’t want that to be the standard for road accidents and frankly outside of this techie niche no one does.

srveale 11d ago

"Sorry, the driver could have turned on FSD, but decided to drive [drunk/tired/distracted] and killed your son. Thankfully we can ban them from driving for a while." This could play out a million times at the population level. If you can decrease the chances of needing justice in the first place, shouldn't that be considered?

mvkel 11d ago

What you're talking about is who to blame, not how to keep more people alive.

datsci_est_2015 11d ago
“Who to blame” turns out to be one of the most important facets of humanity, and it turns out we structure our entire society around it: assigning liability and pursuing justice. That’s not something that can be handwaved away to technocratically chase a metric (traffic deaths).
- mvkel 11d ago
  A person needs to die for us to assign liability and pursue justice. If fewer people die, there is no liability to assign. It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. Which yeah, sounds just like us! "This is the way we've always done it!"
  - saulpw 11d ago
    If fewer people die, there is only less liability to assign. Remember that the original argument was "FSD needs to have 0 fatalities before we adopt it". And it's not valid to argue that some traffic fatalities are unavoidable; I know people who work at the DOT and "Vision Zero"[0] is a thing, and already implemented in some European countries/cities. Without FSD. So FSD needs to clear this bar. [0] https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/ https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
  - datsci_est_2015 11d ago
    > It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. God I hate technocracy. There’s a reason we elect politicians and not technologists who think everything is simple and we just aren’t making the technically correct policy decisions. “I’m sorry ma’am, we won’t be investigating anyone for your daughter’s death at the hands of the Sexy Deathmobile 5000 because technically no one is liable. But just think, there would have been so many other children killed this year if we didn’t allow these Sexy Deathmobiles to take over the roads! I hear there’s even a software update that will reduce toddler deaths by 5% at the expense of a 10% rise in dog and raccoon deaths, but it’s a choice our technocratic overlords are ecstatic to implement!” You’re also arguing against a false alternative, which is the status quo. I’d rather have our money put towards safe streets and reducing demand for toddler-bulldozers (cars with raised grills) than a FSD pipe dream that would only enrich a few billionaires and the lucky SWEs who happen to pick the correct company to work for.