4 ms·
Unfortunately, that sentiment, wielded as a shield by the ambitious, papers a veneer of virtue over the callous disregard of cutting corners with other people's
by chaboud 9y ago
Unfortunately, that sentiment, wielded as a shield by the ambitious, papers a veneer of virtue over the callous disregard of cutting corners with other people's lives.
The reality is that careful development is expensive. If Uber and Tesla were racing to save lives, they'd open up their work to the public. They're racing to make the most money possible in the end. Part of that equation is cost. Another is maximizing the utility of available resources.
They only need to be safe enough to not get shut down or lose substantial market share (ongoing capital).
- saalweachter 9y agoI think the exact logical flaw is that saying "slowing down development for testing costs lives" assumes the solution will be validated as correct. Waiting a year to deploy the correct solution for want of testing costs the lives that solution could have saved in that year, yes, but pushing one correct and four incorrect solutions immediately into production - when the incorrect solutions each cost twice as many lives as could have otherwise been saved - and re-evaluating after a year kills far more people than are saved.