Originally Posted by
genec
I have no "evidence" per se, other than the comments I read about people saying AVs won't work... and their citations of "it won't be perfect." I have a THEORY... I am testing that theory.
So, again, per my earlier email... at what point will you accept AI as the driver? At what level of deaths on the roadways would you find it acceptable to prefer robot drivers over human drivers?
(I am betting you will again avoid a direct answer... )
As far as "making people safer" as you suggest... you mean making better drivers??? Gosh, has that EVER worked?
I did answer your question directly. Obviously if I'm agreeing to a 50% reduction being a good thing, number 1 would be a good thing. 2-4 are completely pointless questions, and really strawman positions. My point was that it was a stupid question because I have never seen anyone claim they needed perfection or 90% reduction in road deaths before it could be adopted. Hell, my standard for adoption is actually lower than your #1 because if you're asking me personally, I would accept AI control at the point it was as safe or any better than human drivers. If you want a precise number on it , I'm not claiming to be any kind of authority, so I don't know if 40,000 road deaths is the right measure (I suspect it's a hell of a lot more nuanced than that--highway AI requirements are likely completely different from urban street driving, for example). As far as "preferring" it, that's a rather academic question as even when it's going to be adopted (if ever), there will be many, many driver controlled vehicles on the road, bicycles among them.
I don't see anyone claiming that human drivers are perfect, or that AI drivers need to be perfect before they can replace human drivers. I have accused you of making that up, and I notice that your response to this accusation is to falsely claim I didn't answer your lame attempt at a loaded question.