4 ms·

> The idea that we need to find a single escape-goat to blame and throw in jail for every accident is a very antiquated way to think about justice. There are ma

> The idea that we need to find a single escape-goat to blame and throw in jail for every accident is a very antiquated way to think about justice. There are many cases where nobody is at fault, or multiple people are collectively at fault. But that’s not what we do. We don’t pick a scapegoat and throw them in jail for every accident. We investigate the role the individuals had in the accident, and only if an individual was clearly at fault, they are fined. Often such trials end up with a shared responsibility where the parties at fault also have to jointly pay for the damages caused. So the question remains: if a car on autopilot crashes, who needs to be investigated? The “driver” who had little to no control over the vehicle at that time? The legal cop-out of “you must be in control at all times” won’t fly with proper self driving.

dheera 6y ago
> who needs to be investigated This shouldn't be about "who". This should be about a team of several hundred engineers who investigate the hell out of that data at work and figure out if it could be prevented the next time, and if so, deploy an update. Courts getting involved for every accident with that engineering effort and taking time out of their dayjobs for a legal investigation would only delay the solution and cause more loss of life. There should be accountability in terms of ensuring that a fair engineering investigation happens, and how to modify the code to make it even better than it already is. It's about which lines of code need to be changed, not about "who" needs to be investigated. It's precisely this "who" thinking that I think we need to get over, especially when machines already do far better than humans at certain tasks. Elevators are pretty much all autonomous these days. When elevator accidents happen do we go tracking down which engineer in the elevator design company is at fault? No, as long as it isn't a case of intentional negligence, we first figure out whether the injured person did something wrong, and if not, the team of engineers at the elevator company work together to try to re-engineer the elevators to be more safe the next time around without pointing fingers within their company. And the result? Elevators are pretty much 99.99999% (or whatever) safe these days.

dheera 6y ago

> who needs to be investigated This shouldn't be about "who". This should be about a team of several hundred engineers who investigate the hell out of that data at work and figure out if it could be prevented the next time, and if so, deploy an update. Courts getting involved for every accident with that engineering effort and taking time out of their dayjobs for a legal investigation would only delay the solution and cause more loss of life. There should be accountability in terms of ensuring that a fair engineering investigation happens, and how to modify the code to make it even better than it already is. It's about which lines of code need to be changed, not about "who" needs to be investigated. It's precisely this "who" thinking that I think we need to get over, especially when machines already do far better than humans at certain tasks. Elevators are pretty much all autonomous these days. When elevator accidents happen do we go tracking down which engineer in the elevator design company is at fault? No, as long as it isn't a case of intentional negligence, we first figure out whether the injured person did something wrong, and if not, the team of engineers at the elevator company work together to try to re-engineer the elevators to be more safe the next time around without pointing fingers within their company. And the result? Elevators are pretty much 99.99999% (or whatever) safe these days.