> maybe Tesla gets a license that allows using Autopilot, but only on highways with a speed limit equal to or lower than 55 MPH, and only when it isn't raining

> maybe Tesla gets a license that allows using Autopilot, but only on highways with a speed limit equal to or lower than 55 MPH, and only when it isn't raining or snowing. This is in line with my thinking of the manufacturer taking responsibility. If they can guarantee that it is safe only in certain conditions they can enable self-driving only in those certain conditions. If they can guarantee that it is safe everywhere, they can enable it everywhere. > It's really unappealing to sell a product where you're liable for what end-users do with it. Yes, this is a serious problem that would need to be addressed before implementing a system like this. It would make third-party repairs and modifications difficult. (They would probably have to take responsibility or disable the self-driving features. Of course maybe that is the right model, the repair shop takes responsibility but if they show the problem wasn't their fault then they can turn around and demand damages from the original manufacturer. Unfortunately now there is a lot of annoying legal work generated.) > On the tame side, what if they don't update it? This would be the manufacturer to decide. Maybe it refuses to self-drive if not updated. Of course the reasons that the feature would be removed would need to be made clear to the consumer (or they could get a refund). > I just wanted to bring up that that's probably the death knell for getting to own a self-driving car. Maybe it's still worthwhile. I don't think it is the death-knell, but it definitely blurs the line further between who owns the car and will likely slow down the adoption of individual self-driving cars. This does have downsides but to me it looks like these are likely better than letting this dangerous combination of insufficiently "smart" vehicle and distracted driver zoom around the roads.