We can always make it not so voluntary.

Atleast with the running over pedestrian scenario, I would think the passengers have a manual way to interrupt program logic/stop.

Also, you'd best believe truck decapitations happened a lot without self driving, enough to mandate that trailers have those guardrails below their unloading doors.

developing the fast rail system, at least in california, it was blocked by musk and the gop(elaine chao in trumps 1st term, mitch mcconells wife). cali never tried again.

We will make the most complex convoluted contrivances before laying down steel and locomotives. Funny part I always liked about the I, Robot movie. No, we didn't have public transport, everyone just has self-driving cars on roads controlled by a centralized AI.

"Knew or should have known"

yeah… very much public health attitude

Fine, but if I kill someone with a car I would expect consequences. If their car kills somebody, they are held responsible. They pay, and if they are at fault, it is a criminal matter.

I suspect this ceo isn't saying 'the public is ready for our cars to kill someone, and we don't suffer any consequences, because they seem to be cool with some of them being killed so that we can profit.'

Mind you, look at how many people Musk's cars are killing (including quite a few burned alive) and he suffers no consequences so fuck it. Just keep your capitalist, corporatist, and car culture over there, thanks.

Watch “Upload” on prime. Literally about this.

If a robotic taxi can lower the taxi category of accidents by 91% across the board, including death rates, then that’s a positive improvement to society any way you slice it. Not saying it isn’t a horrifying dystopian world we’re potentially building, but at the moment, given the numbers, it would be 91% safer in that category.

You need to prove this number. Looking at the behavior of current driverless cars, the software is still shit, and nothing has reached Level 5 Autonomous Driving. There are too many edge cases, and conflicting behavior points. Navigating a world of humans driving in different ways with complex urban and rural streets is a very very messy affair.

Hell, nobody in the space can even answer this simple question correctly: If the speed limit is 55 MPH on the highway, and everybody is going 65 MPH, and we know that the delta of speed is what kills people in highway car accidents, what speed does the driverless car use?

(Hint: the correct answer is not 55.)

More so when you take her actual statement in context: that they're actually reducing deaths by being safer. The comments on lemmy are turning out to be just as biased and ungrounded in reality as they were on Reddit.

Waymo robotaxis are so safe that, according to the company’s data, its driverless vehicles are involved in 91 percent fewer crashes compared to human-operated vehicles.

And yet the the company is bracing for the first time when a Waymo does kill somebody — a moment its CEO says society will accept, in exchange for access to its relatively safer driverless cars.

There’s around a million people dying from cars every year and we just shrug and normalize them. Human or not, we just have to have cars and “accidents” are just that.

The difference is accountability. If a human kills another human because of a car accident, they are liable, even criminally liable, given the right circumstances. If a driverless car kills another human because of a car accident, you're presented with a lose-lose scenario, depending on the legal implementation:

1. If the car manufacturer says that somebody must be behind the wheel, even though the car is doing all of the driving, the person is suddenly liable for the accident. They are expected to just sit there and watch for a potential accident, but the behavior of what an AI model will do is undefined. Is the model going to stop in front of that passenger as expected? How long do they wait to see before they take back control? It's not like cruise control, a feature that only controls part of the car, where they know exactly how it behaves and when to take back control. It's the equivalent of asking a person to watch a panel with a single red light for an hour, and push a button as fast as possible when it blinks for a half-second.

2. If the model is truly driverless (like these taxis), then NOBODY is liable for the accident. The company behind it might get sued, or might end up in a class-action lawsuit, but there is no criminal liability, and none of these lawsuits will result in enough financial impact to facilitate change. The companies have no incentive to fix their software, and will continue to parrot this shitty line about how it's somehow better than humans at driving, despite these easily hackable scenarios and zero accountability.

Humans have an incentive to not kill people, since nobody wants to have that on their conscience, and nobody wants to go to prison over it.

Corporations don't. In fact, they have an incentive to kill people over profits, if the choice presents itself!

When it's time for money: COMPANIES ARE PEOPLE TOO!

When it's time for punishment: but you can't hold a company responsible, it's not just one person.

I think the reaction here means that the CEO is wrong. People care more about revenge and punishment than about harm reduction. They prefer more deaths on the road as long as it's humans doing the killing, because we can put them in jail.