A car you can drive drunk is the only meaningful definition of a self-driving car, imo.
I mean both, and specifically that driver assist should be pay to use to offset usage because it is likely higher net risk for a collision than a human. Free driver-assist has a "tragedy of the commons" problem, or a moral hazard, where there is no cost to over-using it and courting a collision event, so this overall risk can be reduced by metering its use.
Also, yes, the system should be safe enough to text while using it. That's what "self driving car" should mean. Another criteria would be that a person should be able to use it with a blood alcohol level higher than is legal today as well, and that it absolves people of an "impaired driving" charge.
There is a division between driver assist and full autonomous self driving, but these are features that could be pay per use based on relative actuarial risk.
To people who say you can't put a price on human life, clearly you do not have auto insurance?
> A car you can drive drunk is the only meaningful definition of a self-driving car, imo.
That's kind of a messy definition. A drunk person might start messing with the controls, and a car that is perfectly able to drive itself might not be able to handle that. You could fix that with a breathalyzer but it would be ridiculous if the difference between self-driving and not-self-driving is the presence of a breathalyzer.
So I would say something more like "drive from the passenger seat" or "drive while asleep".
Technically I would agree with you, but economically, why would anyone drive from the passenger seat, and almost nobody will look forward to sleeping on the road - but my drunk definition applies to everyone in the world who drinks wine, beer, or spirits.
A car you can drive drunk is the problem the tech solves, which is what makes it both viable, and provides success criteria instead of making it just about unreasonable hypothetical standards of perfect safety.
The entire ML and machine vision endeavour should be called what it is, a moonshot to create a drunk driving car.
I mean both, and specifically that driver assist should be pay to use to offset usage because it is likely higher net risk for a collision than a human. Free driver-assist has a "tragedy of the commons" problem, or a moral hazard, where there is no cost to over-using it and courting a collision event, so this overall risk can be reduced by metering its use.
Also, yes, the system should be safe enough to text while using it. That's what "self driving car" should mean. Another criteria would be that a person should be able to use it with a blood alcohol level higher than is legal today as well, and that it absolves people of an "impaired driving" charge. There is a division between driver assist and full autonomous self driving, but these are features that could be pay per use based on relative actuarial risk.
To people who say you can't put a price on human life, clearly you do not have auto insurance?