this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
181 points (89.9% liked)

Technology

34415 readers
278 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CeeBee@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who the hell thinks beta software is appropriate for real-world applications in something as dangerous as vehicle control at highway speeds?

I honestly think it's a mixture of public perception and liability. The company can try to spin negative insurances as "well, we said it's still in beta, there are bugs we're still ironing out". And legally I think the stance is "we said it's a beta version, if you used it in a dangerous situation that's on you".

I know it doesn't exactly work that way, but I genuinely think they're positioning that way at that if (read: when) a legal case pops up they can use the "beta" moniker as part of a defence.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 5 points 1 year ago

Agreed. I’m just not sure how regulators justify allowing software that claims to be beta to operate a vehicle autonomously.