this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
355 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
80795 readers
3087 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And they always will. You need to look at the big picture here, not individual cases. If we replaced every single car on US roads with one driven by AI - proven to be 10 times better a driver than a human - that would still mean 4,000 people getting killed by them each year. That, however, doesn't mean we should go back to human drivers and 40,000 people killed annually.
By that logic...
We should really be investing in trains and busses, not cars of any type.
I think your logic is flawed. The discussion is about a specific form of transportation. By your own logic, you should be suggesting that people fly everywhere.
For long distance maybe, but immediately saying we should all fly everywhere because it has the fewest deaths per passenger mile would really not be looking at the big picture.
Ah, so you do understand there's a difference in why someone would chose one type of transportation over another.
But you don't understand that they're talking about systems while you're talking about personal choice.
I may have gotten sucked into the .ml user's what-about-ism, but I started off by just trying to point out the flaw in their logic.
System, personal choice, whatever -- it doesn't really matter because .ml user is trying to spin facts to support their agenda. I don't know what their agenda is other than just being contentious.
Meh, you both deserve each other honestly. Too concerned with being right that we all lost focus of what is good.
Yes. AI human transformation drones make far more sense. Much easier to avoid things because airspace can be controlled. Just need to figure out how to do efficiently that the ride is more than 5 minutes.
Big picture is AI not being able to operate under unusual conditions means that the "10 times better" (if it were only true) has a big fucking caveat where we can't say the stat will hold true if we replace all drivers.
I fully agree with you, but there is the issue of robotaxis crashing 3x as often as human drivers - and thats with a human supervisor on board. So if we switched completely to AI cars with the current level of integration, thats 120000 people killed.
Tesla made the idiotic decision to rely entirely on cameras, waymo used lidar and other sensors to augment vision.
That’s Tesla, not Waymo. Tesla’s hardware is shit and does not even include lidar. You can’t judge the entire industry by the worst example.
New HW4 Teslas do in fact include a front-facing radar, but it's currently only used for collecting data - not for FSD.
Still, gotta give them credit for getting by with vision-only quite well. I don't personally see any practical reason why you absolutely must include LiDAR. We already know driving relatively safely with vision only is possible - all the best drivers in the world do it.