> I’m guessing you don’t see your property or life as being worth sacrificing for this “noble” goal, right? I said I personally think the risk/reward makes sen

> I’m guessing you don’t see your property or life as being worth sacrificing for this “noble” goal, right? I said I personally think the risk/reward makes sense. So no, I wouldn't sacrifice my life or a non-trivial amount of property for this end. I meant at the statistical level-- I would enter a lottery with 1/n chance of the above for a working self-driving car in 5 years. I think the individual risk is low. > If however you want to personally volunteer your person and property in the name of technological advancement. To some extent I am depending on where I am in the country or on the road. That was my point. I personally think self-driving cars could be a great thing for humanity BUT I think states/cities need to individually vote on this stuff as indicated by the reference to a referendum in my post. Not everyone is going to want to be on the highway next to a car that some company is field-testing some pre-beta code that lulls Bob into some false sense of security that the car actually drives itself. I think we agree with eachother, I think a conversation needs to develop about this at the city & state level. I am not claiming I have an armchair fix but that there needs to be a way to allow this tech to develop without insane regulation while promoting a candid narrative of the risks to constituents to decide.