LogFAQs > #952461584

LinkPizza posted...

But there's no reason for the CEO's to not do this as it's not them having to do this.

Sure there is.

It's not like someone comes up to you and says, "Hey, this will automatically save you $5 million a year!". What you see is someone selling a product for $XX. You then need to do the research to see how reliable these products are, what the maintenance costs are, how many workers you could feasibly replace with automatons, and whether the whole effort is worth it. There's non-zero time, investiture, and effort that goes into that - if the projected savings aren't expected to be significant, the CEO probably won't bother at that point until the math changes (they may, for instance, wait for the tech to become cheaper so that the start-up costs are minimized).

LinkPizza posted...

Also, if you think that cost is insignificant, then they probably won't do buses, either. Bus drivers don't get paid that much.

I've already explained the difference numerous times.

For most retailers, staff salary is a relatively small expense; for transportation, staff salary is their largest expense. Being able to replace their drivers could feasibly more than double their profits in some industries, which is something that a retailer cannot claim. There is a big difference in cost drivers between those two industries.

LinkPizza posted...

Once they are a ton on the road, things will change. There will probably be more accidents. More self-driving vehicles means more chances for one or more to have a malfunction.

The accident rate of a self-driving vehicle is much lower than the average human driver.

Because the rate is already adjusted for the number of vehicles on the road (and the amount of kilometres those vehicles drive), this will not changed as self-driving cars become more widely adopted. If anything, widespread adoption will drop accident rates even farther, because self-driving cars can talk to one another (and to smart tech in and on the road itself) in ways that human-operated cars never could. A self-driving car could signal another self-driving car that it is experiencing a brake malfunction in order to avert an accident; a human-driven car cannot do the same.

You are trying to create a problem where none exists.

LinkPizza posted...

And they all won't be perfect.

They don't need to be; they just need to be better than us.

And you know what? They already are. And they're getting better each year.

LinkPizza posted...

I'm looking at the one you sent me...

Which is not the only one that exists.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!