4 ms·

> The driver being criminally liable is a more powerful incentive. Too powerful. The driver should not be punished for correctly using a legally purchased vehi

> The driver being criminally liable is a more powerful incentive. Too powerful. The driver should not be punished for correctly using a legally purchased vehicle. We don't apply that kind of standard anywhere else, and for good reason. Plus, people would refuse to buy self-driving cars even if they were on average safer than human-driven cars because 1. Everyone thinks they're an above average driver 2. Illusion of control So your proposal would cost lives in the future when self-driving cars actually are safer.

smilekzs 8y ago
> for correctly using a legally purchased vehicle The eyes of the driver in this case were on the phone, not the road. That's hardly "correctly using".
- solveit 8y ago
  The parent was quite clearly in favour of punishing the driver even when they were operating everything correctly, for the purpose of disincentivising unsafe code at the point of purchase. I'm saying that this is a bad proposal.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    I have special insight into what the poster was in favour of. He thought that the prosecutor has a better idea than the rest of us, spent some time thinking about it, and has probably made a good decision. As smilekzs notes it is unlikely that the driver was operating everything correctly. You may note he explicitly said "the government can still regulate for high safety standards [independently of the actions of the prosecutor]".
gregknicholson 8y ago
> The driver should not be punished for correctly using a legally purchased vehicle. So where's the market incentive to bother making the piloting algorithms less killy? Consumers will choose cars that prioritise speed and the safety of the occupants, with no regard for the safety of bystanders. This all seems to stem from the assumption that the computer just does whatever it wants (shrug), and isn't merely a tool being used by a human programmer who's supposed to be in control of it. That way lies [killbot hellscape](https://xkcd.com/1613/ https://xkcd.com/1613/).
- solveit 8y ago
  By punishing the company, not the users.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Presumably liability for the company in cases which the computer is actually the legally responsible party? People will indeed logically and correctly choose devices which wont opt to kill them. In fact they wont buy anything that will ever opt to deliberately kill them in any circumstances. The challenge is to ensure the machine has a survivable alternative in the broadest possible range of scenarios to avoid making bad choices.

smilekzs 8y ago

> for correctly using a legally purchased vehicle The eyes of the driver in this case were on the phone, not the road. That's hardly "correctly using".

solveit 8y ago
The parent was quite clearly in favour of punishing the driver even when they were operating everything correctly, for the purpose of disincentivising unsafe code at the point of purchase. I'm saying that this is a bad proposal.
- roenxi 8y ago
  I have special insight into what the poster was in favour of. He thought that the prosecutor has a better idea than the rest of us, spent some time thinking about it, and has probably made a good decision. As smilekzs notes it is unlikely that the driver was operating everything correctly. You may note he explicitly said "the government can still regulate for high safety standards [independently of the actions of the prosecutor]".

gregknicholson 8y ago

> The driver should not be punished for correctly using a legally purchased vehicle. So where's the market incentive to bother making the piloting algorithms less killy? Consumers will choose cars that prioritise speed and the safety of the occupants, with no regard for the safety of bystanders. This all seems to stem from the assumption that the computer just does whatever it wants (shrug), and isn't merely a tool being used by a human programmer who's supposed to be in control of it. That way lies [killbot hellscape](https://xkcd.com/1613/ https://xkcd.com/1613/).

solveit 8y ago
By punishing the company, not the users.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Presumably liability for the company in cases which the computer is actually the legally responsible party? People will indeed logically and correctly choose devices which wont opt to kill them. In fact they wont buy anything that will ever opt to deliberately kill them in any circumstances. The challenge is to ensure the machine has a survivable alternative in the broadest possible range of scenarios to avoid making bad choices.