undefined | Better HN

0 pointsminhazm3y ago0 comments

There's an opportunity cost trying to get to the best solution. What about all of the people that die in the mean time while we delay rolling out something due to it not being perfect? Just doing some googling the Waymo stack is estimated to cost somewhere in the range of $50-100k, not including the car. A better solution that no one can afford is no solution at all.

Ultimately the only requirement is that the system is safer than humans by some margin that people are comfortable with buying such a system. If that amount is even as little as 2x safer than humans, we still have a moral obligation to roll that out even if we could be 5x safer if we had another $50k worth of sensors and processors on the car.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

AlexandrB3y ago

These kinds of moral arguments are silly because they hit a brick wall as soon as they encounter how society operates in practice. If Tesla has a moral obligation to roll out an FSD that's a just a little safer than humans, then do they not also have an obligation to make it available to all their competitors? If not, does every individual have a moral obligation to buy only Tesla cars? Do governments now have an obligation to subsidize Tesla cars so anyone can afford them? Etc.

And all this only considers first order effects. If a 2x safer FSD feels more dangerous that normal driving and thus reduces FSD uptake for a decade, doesn't Tesla have a moral obligation not to release it to preserve the perception of safety of self driving technology?

wonnage3y ago

Wonder if this is a strong argument for public transit too. While self driving cars are developed let make every effort to figure out if we can get people to take the existing self driving trains and subways…

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse