Cruise recalls all self-driving cars after grisly accident and California ban | All 950 of the General Motors subsidiary’s autonomous cars will be taken off roads for a software update::All 950 of the General Motors subsidiary’s autonomous cars will be taken off roads for a software update

  • Baggins [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    What’s the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it’s more than zero.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      It is more than zero. Anything that beats humans is a win. Getting to zero is unrealistic. Nothing has a zero risk of death.

      • Baggins [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Correct, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Zero is the acceptable number, so anything that gets us closer to that is good.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          You’re shifting goal posts.

          What’s the acceptable vehicular homicide rate? GM seems to think it’s more than zero.

          Correct, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Zero is the ideal number, so anything that gets us closer to that is good.

          Acceptable is different than ideal.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              That’s true. But then you run into the issue of “The perfect being the enemy of the good.”

          • Baggins [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Ok ya pedantic fuck. I edited my comment just for you. I know English is hard to understand.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              But now you’re misusing “acceptable”.

              We would need to get to the other side of acceptable for widespread use of autos (self driving vehicles). It’s not an unachievable goal you always try to get closer to. That word is your previously used “ideal”. Which its seems now is what you meant with your original comment, instead of the “acceptable” you actually used.

              It’s not just pedantic. I’m not the only one who thought you said something you apparently now didn’t mean, because you used words you apparently don’t understand. The words you use are vital to your being understood.

              You could just humbly admit your original mistake in language, and nobody would give you a hard time.

              • Baggins [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I’m misusing “acceptable” because you think I mean something that I didn’t mean? Move along then.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Yes! Exactly! And based on the vote counts I’m seeing 2/3 people misunderstood you. And when one is trying to explain something to another, if the other doesn’t understand, it can logically only be the fault of the person explaining.

    • raptir@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s equally ridiculous to say. Self driving cars just need to be better than people to be worth it, they just currently are not better than people.

      • Baggins [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s ridiculous to think that cars shouldn’t be killing people? Well smack my ass and call me an extremist.

        • raptir@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, it’s ridiculous to say that if self driving cars kill fewer people than human driven cars but still more than zero that we should not use them. That’s like saying “why use seatbelts, they’re not 100% effective.”

              • Baggins [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                I’m sorry to hear you’re having trouble with logic but it’s not complicated. Zero people should be killed by cars, therefore anything that gets us closer to that ideal number is a good thing.

        • wile_e8@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Are you calling for a ban on human driven cars? They killed more than zero people yesterday! If you aren’t, you’ve accepted a human-driven vehicular homicide rate above zero.