3 ms·

Acceptable losses is the only possibility, if we are to have cars at all. Everyone is on the side of less death, but since there are some inherent dangers in z

Acceptable losses is the only possibility, if we are to have cars at all. Everyone is on the side of less death, but since there are some inherent dangers in zooming along at 120km/h, the losses can only approach zero and will never reach it. The fact that cars are used at all shows that we make something like a utilitarian decision already. They are very, very useful, with a small possibility of personal catastrophe. Same with air travel, drinking beer, or leaving the house ever, all to different degrees. If the autocars are less likely to kill me than human drivers, I'm for the autocars.

archagon 10y ago
> If the autocars are less likely to kill me than human drivers, I'm for the autocars. I think this situation is a bit different than the arrival of air travel or even the automobile, because with all those technologies, humans were still making, or validating, all the life-and-death decisions (barring technical failure). I also think the kind of death we're talking about matters a whole lot. What if autos were incredibly safe, but far more prone than ordinary drivers to running over small children and pets? Would society accept that? Many people are not comfortable with impenetrable algorithms managing their safety on a mass scale, or indeed, with making any conscious decisions at all when it comes to "trolley problem" issues. And that discomfort is well within their rights. Technological progress is not a divine edict, but something that society has to negotiate and agree upon. The debate should be respected.