> The sad truth of this is that whilst it's an interesting technical challenge, I really can't forsee a situation where a computer could react to all the different things that could happen when driving a car as well as a human.
I agree, at least for some time. But it's not about a computer reacting to as much as a human. The question is, can a computer can do a better job overall (e.g. drnk driving or texting while driving accidents are eliminated)? So dont look for a perfect driving record, as humans have loads of accidents today. As long as the computer has less frequent or severe accidents it is a welcome improvement to our roads even if it does have infrequent limitations.
People will have a lot of trouble accepting that they drive worse than the self-driving car, but less that others do. After all, we all think we're better than average drivers.
What I think we'll see initially is that people won't think they need self-driving for themselves but will be all for it for others. Think parents buying a car for their teenager: they'll want that car to have every safety feature under the sun. Likewise, the younger generation helping their aging Baby Boomer parents buy a new car.
Once you've started to get some mindshare that way, I think usage will spread pretty quickly. Then I think we'll hit a cultural tipping point.
When there are a lot of self-driving cars on the road and people have seen the evidence of their safety, not driving one will clearly become a selfish act: you're choosing to endanger others because you want to be in control of your car.
In the same way that we scorn people who don't wear seatbelts (even though it only puts them at risk) and despise people who don't make their children buckle up, I expect eventually we'll feel the same way about self-driving cars. It will be considered a public safety issue where you are a bad person if you don't drive one.
A software bug IS a human error. We need to accept the overall better (statistical) performance. In aviation this works out pretty well. As well a bug will harm at most on a limited number of events after which it is weeded out (like in aviation). The same human error (eg. drunk driving) will occur over and over again.
I agree, at least for some time. But it's not about a computer reacting to as much as a human. The question is, can a computer can do a better job overall (e.g. drnk driving or texting while driving accidents are eliminated)? So dont look for a perfect driving record, as humans have loads of accidents today. As long as the computer has less frequent or severe accidents it is a welcome improvement to our roads even if it does have infrequent limitations.