4 ms·
What's meta disturbing about autopilot is the argument that it could save X lives a year, by cutting the road toll from Y down to Z. For that statement to be a
by wombatmobile 5y ago
What's meta disturbing about autopilot is the argument that it could save X lives a year, by cutting the road toll from Y down to Z.
For that statement to be a validation for legalising autopilot for open usage, the bar for Z needs to be a lot lower than Y. It needs to be zero or else we would be blessing fatal bugs.
- IncRnd 5y agoRelated to what you wrote, I strongly disagree with the argument that some people make, where it is said X lives were saved. But, what they are really saying is that Y people, who wouldn't otherwise die, were killed by the new technology, yet overall fewer died! What good is any technology if it is known to kill people who would otherwise be alive?
- osmarks 5y agoWhy does the particular set of people matter instead of just the difference in numbers? If the Y people happened to be a subset of those who would die without the technology, is that better? If you somehow move all the deaths caused by a thing to a different but equally large set of people, is that bad because those people "would otherwise be alive"?
- wombatmobile 5y agoIt depends on who you ask. If we could lower the national death toll by 1,000 people a year but it meant that 4 people you love the most would perish, would you support this new initiative or oppose it?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]