exanime

But they'd get restitution through insurance. Even if nobody is going to jail, there will still be insurance claims.

And that's where I'm aiming at... If Mercedes decides, like Ford did before them, that it's cheaper to pay out the insurance claims they lose instead of fixing their bugs then innocent people will have to die so Mercedes can keep up their profit margins.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make

You seem to argue that, on the unproven premise that current AI is better than human drivers, we should let corporations test it out in the real world even if they are not criminally liable ever. For me, that's a bad deal.

Now, imagine we go down this rabbit hole... It's already 10x cheaper to lobby USA politicians to limit Mercedes liability than it would be for them to actually start paying wrongly death claims

In Texas, if you doctor shows up drunk for surgery and leaves you quadriplegic or kills you, the biggest liability exposure has been limited to 250k

I love tech and I do believe science, knowledge and the tech it can produce could improve our lives in unimaginable ways.... But as long as our approach to it continues to be profit over people, socialise the risk - privatize the profit and corporation being citizens in all aspects except liability, we will never get there

Your thought experiment doesn't work

The point of a thought experiment is to think about that proposition, not to replace with whatever you think makes sense

3. AI driver causes a fatal accident.

Nobody gets criminal charges. Insurance pays out depending on policy.

Now here is my concern... You are reducing a human life to a dollar amount just like Ford did with the Pinto. If Mercedes (who is apparently liable), decides they are making more money selling their cars than paying out to people injured or killed by their cars, what's left to force them to recall/change/fix their algorithm?

PS: I also never claimed I rather have 20000 more people die for accountability... So, I guess you have to argue that with the part of your brain that made it up

The proposition is stupid.

Oh the depth of reasoning in social media

If you told me that ALL future accidents will be prevented if I agree to kill my family, I would still not do it

That is exactly the point... Anyone would be 100% happy taking any proposition as long as they don't have to pay the cost. I was just trying to highlight that

In this case, it was all about liability... We have not even come close to prove the current driverless tech is actually better than people's skills.... We all know that automated driving should be safer but we have no clue if we are even taking the right steps.to get there

American cops have shown repeatedly they cannot be trusted with a baton... Anything with their involvement leading to injecting people with anything is completely absurd and dystopian

Land of the free my ass

Anyone in tech who moved from Cali to Texas was completely misguided... Case in point, ElOn

Do you know what a thought experiment is??

Yes, it's a thought experiment... Not a fair question, just trying to put it in perspective

Anyone who understands stats would agree 40k death is worse than 20k but it also depends on other factors. All things being equal to today, the 20k proposition is only benefit

But if we look into the nuance and details emerge, the formula changes. For example, here it's been discussed that there may be nobody liable. If that's the case, we win by halving death (absolutely a win) but now the remaining 20k may be left with no justice... Worse, it absolutely creates a perverse incentive for these companies, without liability exposure, to do whatever to maximize profit

So, not trying to be a contrarian here... I just want to avoid the polarization that is now the rule online... Nothing is just black and white

Read the proposition... It's a thought experiment what we were discussing

No, I do mean literally your family. Not because I'm trying to be mean to you, I'm just trying to highlight you'd agree with a contract when you think the price does not apply to you.... But in reality the price will apply to someone, whether they agree with the contract and enjoy the benefits or not

It's the exact same situation with real life with the plane manufacturers. They lobby the government to allow recalls not to be done immediately but instead on the regular maintenance of the planes. This is to save money but it literally means that some planes are put there with known defects that will not be addressed for months (or years, depending on the maintenance needed)

Literally, people who'd never have a loved one in one of those flights decided that was acceptable to save money. They agreed, it's ok to put your life at risk, statistically, because they want more money

Now, once Tesla goes Mercedes and says you don't have to pay attention, it's gonna be the company that should step in

That doesn't give me warm and fuzzies either... Imagine a poor dude having to fight Mercedes or Testla because he was crippled by a sleeping driver and bad AI... Not even counting the lobbying that would certainly happen to reduce and then eliminate their liability

Hmmm I get you point but you seem to be taken the cavalier position of one who'd never be affected.

Let's proposed this alternative scenario: AI is 50% safer and would reduce death from 40k to 20k a year if adopted. However, the 20k left will include your family and, unfortunately , there is no accountability therefore, nobody will pay to help raise your orphan nephew or help grandma now that your grandpa died ran over by a Tesla... Would you approve AI driving going forward?