The 'next' comment after yours is "Alternate headline: Waymo saves child's life" and the 'prev' comment is "A human driver would most likely have killed this child. That's what should be on the ledger." - would either of those be less 'callous and clinical'?
Other accident reports I've seen (NTSB, etc) often seem to take a similar approach - is it a bad thing?
Or what kind of language wouldn't make you 'want not to use their service'?
> The fact that lots of drivers suck doesn't mean that waymo gets a pass.
But that fact does mean that we should encourage alternatives that reduce fatalities, and that not doing so results in fatalities that did not need to occur.
> The real solution? Get rid of cars.
I also support initiatives to improve public transit, etc. However, I don't think "get rid of cars" is a realistic idea to the general public right now, so let's encourage all of the things that improve things - robot drivers if they kill people less often than humans, public transit, etc. - let's not put off changes that will save lives on the hope that humanity will "get rid of cars" any time soon. Or when do you think humanity will "get rid of cars"?
I tried to find some data: In a 20 mph school zone, ~70-80% of drivers drove 26 mph or faster, regardless of whether there were flashing lights, an always-20 zone, or a 20-when-schoolchildren-present zone. [1]
Although note that ~70-80% of drivers drove 6 or more mph over the speed limit in a school zone, while it seems like the claims in some of these comments are that a human driver would drive at less than 17 mph out of an abundance of caution.
Specifically: “ Although our pharmaceutical armamentarium is very good at the moment (the combination of statin-ezetimibe-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] can reduce LDL cholesterol [LDL-C] levels by 85%), new drugs are emerging through the different pitfalls of current drugs.”
Are you comparing robot drivers to the existing alternative? Next time you see one of those blinking speed displays, I’d urge you to pull over and see how fast many human drivers go, and watch for what percent of them aren’t consistently even looking at the road ahead.
No, Waymo’s quote supports the grandparent comment - it was about a “fully attentive human driver” - unless you are arguing that human drivers are consistently “fully attentive”?
Fair enough, so then how fast would a semi-attentive driver stop?
The comment I originally replied to makes the claim a human's brain wouldn't have even responded fast enough to register the child was there. That's going WAY further than how Waymo is claiming a human would have responded.
I don't see how that's a more reasonable assumption that a human driver actually being "fully attentive", and I'm not sure Waymo's definition of that term is the same as what you're using.
1. I often see signs in such areas that flash when people exceed the limit. I’d urge you to pull over and see how often humans drive above the limit.
2. I’d urge you to also pull over and watch for how many drivers are not consistently looking at the road, such as using their phones, looking down at climate/entertainment/vehicle controls, looking at a passenger, etc
At least in the interim, wouldn’t doing what you propose cause more deaths if robot drivers are less harmful than humans, but the rules require stronger than that? (I can see the point in making rules stronger as better options become available, but by that logic, shouldn't we already be moving towards requiring robots and outlawing human drivers if it's safer?)
It's even worse than I guessed - moltbot updated their official docs to install the new package name ( https://github.com/moltbot/moltbot?tab=readme-ov-file#instal... ), but it was a package name they have not obtained, and a different non-clawdbot 'moltbot' package is there.
It's been 15 hours since that "CRITICAL" issue bug was opened, and moltbot has had dozens of commits ( https://github.com/moltbot/moltbot/commits/main/ ), but not to fix or take down the official install instructions that continue to have people install a 'moltbot' package that is not theirs.
Other accident reports I've seen (NTSB, etc) often seem to take a similar approach - is it a bad thing?
Or what kind of language wouldn't make you 'want not to use their service'?
reply