• Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
    3·
    1 year ago

    A lot of places have bad drivers, and debatedly, a robo driver for instance would probably better than a drunk driver. Both have faults. Robo drivers are pretty good when everything is by the book but its bad with edge cases. Human drivers can cover edges better, but y becomes a trust that said human isnt either a terrible driver or impaired for any reason.

    • Jesse@aus.social
      2·
      1 year ago

      @dudewitbow @JetpackJackson my concern with robo-taxises is specifically that they’re not good at the edge cases. This means there will be a push to remove those edge cases, to simplify streets to match the abilities of the robo-taxises. We start to design our cities for the limitations of some software

      • JetpackJackson@feddit.deOP
        1·
        1 year ago

        Oh true, I didn’t think of that. Edge cases, I mean. I’m just always so nervous about these autonomous things that I just kinda marked it down as generally a bad thing, but now that I’m reading what others have commented, it does seem like there are more pros that I haven’t seen or thought about. So thanks for that.

        (Also I noticed that you tried to ping me by mentioning me but I didn’t get a ping, is that a kbin thing?)

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
        1·
        1 year ago

        We already live in a world of edge cases. Because of the existing design of needing to have a car to get around, we have incidents like this:

        https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/los-angeles-elderly-driver-kills-woman-after-plowing-car-into-dealership/

        Which only exist because of the necessity to drive in the first place. This is a edge case where a human driver is arguably more dangerous to society than yhe autonomous driver, and only happened because some old people require a car to get around from their homes due to either lack of ability or unwillingness to move, and poor public transportation.