undefined | Better HN

0 pointsepivosism3y ago0 comments

I see where you're going, but how do you actually justify your choices?

A: occasional random suicide (100 deaths/year), no other deaths B: no random suicide, 10k deaths per year from normal driving

You would be saying you choose B?

It's not really about the exact numbers here - just trying to get on the same page - would you really weigh your uncomfortableness with "random deaths" highly enough that you would accept increased actual deaths?

Another possibility is that the random death situation really is a signal of "actually hard-to-detect badness". If so, it should come out in statistics and we should easily be able to come to agreement in that case.

But, if the choice really is between accepting "weird mistakes+lower deaths" or "status quo+many deaths" I feel pretty uncomfortable accepting the latter knowing the real-world consequences.

0 comments

MBCook3y ago

This is a human comfort thing, not a reason thing. As someone else in this discussion said if computers do something that looks stupid to people, they won’t trust it.

What if the investigation here showed the Tesla was 100% correct to do what it did?

What it did is so odd I wouldn’t want to trust it. Maybe the problem is it needs to fail in a more human-like way?

If the death numbers get low enough, I think it will likely speak for itself and people will trust it. But it can’t be a 30% reduction in deaths. It needs to be like 95%.

Enough that it feels safer instead of questionable/dangerous. Even if it was actually safer the entire time.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse