Comment

Comment by kstrauser

Good. I don't see this as a safety issue so much as a make-work law. If a human would have to be in a self-driving truck at all times and ready to assume the controls on a moment's notice, that's basically human-driven with extra steps. Either the tech is good enough to be autonomous, or it's not good enough to replace a human driver in the first place. And as a driver, I don't think I'd want to be legally responsible for whatever boneheaded move a truck might take in the moments before I could regain control over it. "Hey, I know it was the AI that decided to swerve into the crowd of toddlers, and you only had 300ms to respond, but you were the one sitting in the driver's seat..."

Now, I'm not thrilled with the idea of ending human jobs without giving those people a way to survive. Even if I weren't sympathetic to those hard-working people who are ready and willing to do the tough jobs that keep society running -- and I hope it's obvious that I am -- enlightened self interest means that I don't want all of to be unemployed and hungry. That's bad for everyone. I also wish we shipped more freight via train, which is cheaper and way more environmentally friendly. Making it easier and cheaper to ship even more via truck is probably the wrong path to optimize.

But all that aside, I still think this is a well intended but ultimately wrong solution. Frankly, it seems like it'd be cheaper and more efficient to pay those drivers to stay home rather than pay them to perch in a self-driving truck.

parent kstrauser 3 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton