5 ms·

1. We have democratic checks and debate now, regarding this issue. 2. I see no evidence that "massive, publicly-funded investment" would achieve this technolog

by Bud 7y ago

1. We have democratic checks and debate now, regarding this issue. 2. I see no evidence that "massive, publicly-funded investment" would achieve this technological goal faster or better than via capitalistic means. Do you have any? 3. Lives will be lost regardless of how the tech is developed. Surely this is obvious. So what are you even talking about?

sverige 7y ago
Re: 1. above, who do we sue when the autopilot kills someone? The owner of the vehicle? The manufacturer? The driver behind the wheel (if there is one and it's not the same as the owner)?
- revscat 7y ago
  That is an area that is still being debated. I suspect it will depend on the level of autonomy the car claims to provide. If it is level 5, and perhaps doesn't even include a steering wheel or other means of controlling the vehicle, then there would be no rational basis to hold anyone inside liable for failure. If, on the other hand, it is level 3 or 4, and does provide a steering wheel, and prominently informs the user that they are ultimately responsible for the vehicle, then the driver would be liable in this case. This technology is still evolving, though, and the law will need to be adjusted accordingly.
- fizx 7y ago
  Ideally, every self-driving car would have secondary insurance baked into its price. If someone dies, it's an insurance payout of a standardized amount.
  - sverige 7y ago
    I don't think the plaintiff's bar is going to allow standardized payouts on deaths or injuries. That would ruin their business model, and they have a lot of influence. The question will be whether the inevitable losses due to jury awards can be sustained by any of the manufacturers.
untog 7y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting that publicly-funded investment would make this happen faster. Just safer. It's an inherent characteristic of capitalism that the primary driver is profit. I mean, it's the whole point of the system. What is the value of one human life within this system? Historically that value has not been high. Now, when people saying "publicly-funded investment" it's a popular conception that this means a vast amount of government waste, because everything the government does is wasteful, right? How is three or four companies spending huge amounts of money to pursue the exact same goal not wasteful? Look at things like the internet itself. Public funding of technology can work.
- isostatic 7y ago
  If * capitalistic automatic cars mean 2000 deaths per year, reducing linearly to zero after 10 years * socialist automatic cars eventually mean 1200 deaths per year, reducing to zero after 30 years * manual cars mean 1000 deaths per year, not reducing Then after 11 years total deaths will be the same in all 3 cases (11,000), but after 30 years it will be 11k capital, 18k socialist, and 30k and growing with no changes. However that's of no comfort to the families of who died in the start, especially the ones who didn't opt in (as was typical with flying when it was more dangerous).
  - untog 7y ago
    Is there any real point in debating numbers like this that are just plucked from the air?
    - isostatic 7y ago
      The relevant point is > I don't think anyone is suggesting that publicly-funded investment would make this happen faster. Just safer. The point is that while it could be safer per year, being slower means that it's not safer.
simion314 7y ago
Maybe OP is referring that some billionaire appears with some bad statistics that if we let him kill 1000 people he assures us that he will probably invent something to save double. Putting those billions in removing the drunk or tired drivers from the roads, enforcing the laws and rules would save more people.
crististm 7y ago
So are you volunteering?
claudeganon 7y ago
>1. We have democratic checks and debate now, regarding this issue. Not functionally, consistently, or meaningfully. Many of these companies have learned to how to ingratiate themselves to party machines in the markets where they operate, such that this decision-making is almost entirely excluded from public check or debate. Others, like Uber, willfully break laws with little consequence, for much of the same reason as the above. >2. I see no evidence that "massive, publicly-funded investment" would achieve this technological goal faster or better than via capitalistic means. Do you have any? As someone else pointed out, its not about faster but more safely. But the whole technology that these companies are building on top of was arrived at by this kind of public research to begin with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#History >3. Lives will be lost regardless of how the tech is developed. Surely this is obvious. So what are you even talking about? That private companies not be the nearly sole arbiters of what lives are worth sacrificing.

by Bud 7y ago

sverige 7y ago

Re: 1. above, who do we sue when the autopilot kills someone? The owner of the vehicle? The manufacturer? The driver behind the wheel (if there is one and it's not the same as the owner)?

revscat 7y ago
That is an area that is still being debated. I suspect it will depend on the level of autonomy the car claims to provide. If it is level 5, and perhaps doesn't even include a steering wheel or other means of controlling the vehicle, then there would be no rational basis to hold anyone inside liable for failure. If, on the other hand, it is level 3 or 4, and does provide a steering wheel, and prominently informs the user that they are ultimately responsible for the vehicle, then the driver would be liable in this case. This technology is still evolving, though, and the law will need to be adjusted accordingly.
fizx 7y ago
Ideally, every self-driving car would have secondary insurance baked into its price. If someone dies, it's an insurance payout of a standardized amount.
- sverige 7y ago
  I don't think the plaintiff's bar is going to allow standardized payouts on deaths or injuries. That would ruin their business model, and they have a lot of influence. The question will be whether the inevitable losses due to jury awards can be sustained by any of the manufacturers.

untog 7y ago

I don't think anyone is suggesting that publicly-funded investment would make this happen faster. Just safer. It's an inherent characteristic of capitalism that the primary driver is profit. I mean, it's the whole point of the system. What is the value of one human life within this system? Historically that value has not been high. Now, when people saying "publicly-funded investment" it's a popular conception that this means a vast amount of government waste, because everything the government does is wasteful, right? How is three or four companies spending huge amounts of money to pursue the exact same goal not wasteful? Look at things like the internet itself. Public funding of technology can work.

isostatic 7y ago
If * capitalistic automatic cars mean 2000 deaths per year, reducing linearly to zero after 10 years * socialist automatic cars eventually mean 1200 deaths per year, reducing to zero after 30 years * manual cars mean 1000 deaths per year, not reducing Then after 11 years total deaths will be the same in all 3 cases (11,000), but after 30 years it will be 11k capital, 18k socialist, and 30k and growing with no changes. However that's of no comfort to the families of who died in the start, especially the ones who didn't opt in (as was typical with flying when it was more dangerous).
- untog 7y ago
  Is there any real point in debating numbers like this that are just plucked from the air?
  - isostatic 7y ago
    The relevant point is > I don't think anyone is suggesting that publicly-funded investment would make this happen faster. Just safer. The point is that while it could be safer per year, being slower means that it's not safer.

simion314 7y ago

Maybe OP is referring that some billionaire appears with some bad statistics that if we let him kill 1000 people he assures us that he will probably invent something to save double. Putting those billions in removing the drunk or tired drivers from the roads, enforcing the laws and rules would save more people.

crististm 7y ago

So are you volunteering?

claudeganon 7y ago

>1. We have democratic checks and debate now, regarding this issue. Not functionally, consistently, or meaningfully. Many of these companies have learned to how to ingratiate themselves to party machines in the markets where they operate, such that this decision-making is almost entirely excluded from public check or debate. Others, like Uber, willfully break laws with little consequence, for much of the same reason as the above. >2. I see no evidence that "massive, publicly-funded investment" would achieve this technological goal faster or better than via capitalistic means. Do you have any? As someone else pointed out, its not about faster but more safely. But the whole technology that these companies are building on top of was arrived at by this kind of public research to begin with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#History >3. Lives will be lost regardless of how the tech is developed. Surely this is obvious. So what are you even talking about? That private companies not be the nearly sole arbiters of what lives are worth sacrificing.