3 ms·

I don’t agree this is settled ethically unless you can come up with a better example. This leaves full agency in the hands of the driver throughout the applicat

by gfodor 6y ago

I don’t agree this is settled ethically unless you can come up with a better example. This leaves full agency in the hands of the driver throughout the application, unlike a drug which is a point-in-time decision which leads to a long chain of events outside the patient’s control. A better example would be something where a manual operator was displaced by an automated one, especially where the operator was a non-professional and the use of the thing is risky and already kills many people. Perhaps there is an analog in trucking or machinery.

tsimionescu 6y ago
In most cases, drugs need to be taken regularly for a period of time to have any observable effect, positive or negative. Sure, it's still much less immediate than a driving decision, but it's also not simply a point-in-time decision. More importantly though, I believe that the statistical characteristics are more relevant here - I have no idea to how much risk I'm exposing myself by activating the Tesla "FSD", because (1) I don't know how much I can trust myself to switch from supervision to split-second control, and (2) I have no idea how badly this has been going for other drivers of the Tesla, or how likely the Tesla is to make really poor decisions (will it stop before the intersection, or plow directly into traffic? What percentage of the time will it do either?)