5 ms·

Machines in a business setting when they cause death, often it is due to improper safety protocol for said machines. Consumer devices don't have this level of

Machines in a business setting when they cause death, often it is due to improper safety protocol for said machines. Consumer devices don't have this level of control over a person's life anywhere near as often, in the sense that the device has your life at stake and makes decisions for you. "no one is at fault" is entirely counter intuitive to engineering principles. When a rare accident happens, the engineer is often responsible. We don't 'build' AI in anywhere remotely the same way as buildings or legacy software products, there isn't a 'designer' for said AI system other than the training model - which can certainly not account for every possible edge case. Self-driving cars can't 'only be \better\ than humans'. Because only humans can currently drive. Self-driving cars need to be nearly 100% safe when you entirely remove the human driver.

ksdale 5y ago
When machines malfunction and kill people, the manufacturers pay. If it was gross negligence that killed someone, someone goes to jail, unless they're the dead one. Every day, our homes don't catch fire despite all of the electricity running through the walls, our combustion engines don't explode, our batteries don't explode, our buildings don't collapse. The modern world is full of things that could kill us and don't. I didn't say no one is at fault, the manufacture is at fault if they built the vehicle in a way that we deem was wrong enough to deserve fault. And we get to decide who's liable, just because you can act like the AI is sentient doesn't mean you can't make the company who wrote the code responsible for the actions of the AI. And if we wait until self-driving cars are 100% safe, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths will happen in the meanwhile.