What does "drive better than humans" mean? Drive better in all possible scenarios? That's likely impossible now and probably forever. Maybe driver better in a majority of scenarios weighted by occurrence probability? Maybe, but we don't currently have the technology to validate this requirement.

Indeed it's interesting!

There are obviously mistakes that SDCs will make that humans never will (ignoring sci-fi shit, I'm talking about the current state of the art), and things they'll be worse at.

There's also mistakes they won't make: they never get tired, impatient or angry. They never turn around to yell at (or beat, yep I've seen that) their kids while driving. Being more widely trained they won't lack experience driving with a find misting of unexpected liquid on the roads (hi LA you suck at driving in the rain) etc. They won't text. Won't try to punish other road users. Won't get drunk or high. And so on. Well they shouldn't. If SDC companies think they can skirt or edge over the law to get a competitive advantage they will, and now you'll have law breaking at scale (well kinda like regular drivers!).

And they can (Waymo, not Tesla) have superhuman senses, e.g. lidar and radar.

But... well it can be measured to an extent: you can measure deaths per billion km, and see if SDCs do better or worse. Though that can hide a lot of things. For example if they are utterly unable to cope with unexpected situations and stall blocking the roads, then deaths caused by blocked emergency services won't be attributed correctly to them.

Certainly any comparison to the worst drivers is useless.

Depends: I would assume (though common sense often isn't so YMMV) that the worst drivers are responsible for a much higher proportion of problems than the best. So let's say the SDC apocalypse eliminate the worst X% of drivers, but also flatten the best 100-X% down to X. I'd imagine that there is some value of X where this is a net improvement.

Question is what is X. Probably middleish I'd imagine since the worst X% do the most damage.

But of course also SDCs will always make different mistakes which makes it hard to evaluate because the X% level SDC won't really be like an X% level human.

I don't think the cherry picked examples of "SDC does something dumbass" because (e.g. in the UK, where we have some of the safest roads in the world) 1600 people die per year due to motor vehicle collisions a substantial number of those are due to utterly fucking stupid people (nearly 50% are alcohol related).

It's an interesting question. That of course centres around the mechanics of SDCs driving compared to humans. There are likely to be other damaging failure modes when you have 3 companies controlling almost all cars, where for example certain kinds of traffic management become impossible because getting google to agree to code for it is impossible and they somehow won't pay fines. Or you might have the "cruise forever if you can't find a parking spot" button which will will make traffic even worse because the roads are free to use and there'll be a mechanism to abuse free resources for personal gain even further.

This seems like essentially a variant of the Waluigi effect hypothesized here https://www.lesswrong.com/post... which had the advantage of a pretty fun name for the situation, and is worth reading

I've not seen that before. It was an interesting read.

Huh I agree with you, pretty strongly, about something!

Personally I think the right to privacy stuff is a little broken. It was fine to have no particular expectation of privacy in a public place because when those laws were written the only practical way to violate it was to have 1 person essentially stalking one other, and that doesn't scale. It's really expensive, so a few people might have their privacy violated in an unreasonable way but as a population it was fine.

We now have the tech to scale cheaply, so a well funded organisation can follow huge numbers of people all the time.

Depending on your views of private corporations, that may or may not be acceptable.

However, the temptation for the government is always too great here, and if that data is available they will use it legally or not. I think the only way to stop them is to make it much harder for companies to do panopticon surveillance in the first place.

"Reflective Prompting" pattern. Generally done with a second agent that consumes the output of the first.

Expensive, prone to concluding violations occurred even when they didn't (the desire to please is real), and dangerous to rely on.

IIRC the accident statistics on Tesla and Google auto-driving vehicles show that they're safer than an average newly minted 16 year-old driver, and we've (almost) all been that person at one time.

Ad when has any member of this Sadministration bothered to comply with the Constitution, the law, or an executive order? They do whatever they feel will please the Orangutan in Chief so that he can direct some of the graft their way.

Their airfoil design was what got the aviation industry under way, no one else had worked out an actual functional design yet. Otto Lelienthal for example was killed when his glider stalled because of poor airfoil configuration. IIRC they also worked out the mechanics of a wind tunnel trying to figure out the correct shape.

That is the most idiotic question I have ever heard.

Look in the mirror, bro.

The GGGP stated you don't need a working EUV machine in order to build an EUV machine and you have been arguing that point for like 5 posts now.

GGGP> You dont need 2nm tech to make 2nm tech.
YOU> Citation Needed.

also you:
"That's idiotic".

Yes. I 100% agree it is idiotic.

Pretty much everyone ignored the Wright brothers' patents at the time, if they hadn't the worldwide aviation industry would have have been stunted for decades.

Aircraft just have an obvious beginning that pretty much everyone is aware of, feel free to pick your own example.

Wow, I can't decide. Either you're remarkably ignorant about the Middle East in general and Iranian society in particular, or you're an Usrael troll. Congratulations!

China learned almost a thousand years ago that attempting to conquer and occupy foreign territory against the wishes of its populace was unsustainable, while trade links and mutual interests could last centuries. Unfortunately the US does not have the history to have learned that, nor the ability to learn from other cultures.

The Strait of Hormuz consists entirely of Iranian and Omani coastal waters, no international waters there. They have every bit as much right to decide what happens in the Strait of Hormuz as the US and Canada have to decide what happens in the Strait of Juan de Fuca that enters into Puget Sound.

Americans blatantly "steal" Chinese IP as well, that's how technology progresses. Or do you think that if China wants to build an airplane they should have to invent a whole new airfoil rather than "steal" from the Wright brothers? I personally have come to think that the whole idea of "imaginary property" is more of a drag on our civilization than a benefit. I used to be of the opposite opinion but the more I learned about the history of technology the less value protecting IP seemed to have for society as a whole.

What are you talking about?

It's a simple question. Did ASML need a working EUV machine in order to build an EUV machine?

The answer is obviously no. I don't really get why you are arguing this.

Gender is real as long as you mean it as equivalent of biological sex.

It' always good when you're arguing the brain doesn't exist. But even if we ignore that, I bet you can't even give a foolproof definition of "biological sex".