4 ms·
Of course, I don't know the future, it was just a hypothetical question, not a mathematical definition. My point was just the answer is not zero because the alt
by davej 5y ago
Of course, I don't know the future, it was just a hypothetical question, not a mathematical definition. My point was just the answer is not zero because the alternative is human driving and human driving is also not zero deaths. So, at some point we will have to make some sort of trade off that will involve some number of deaths. Unless you are suggesting that the likelihood of deaths should literally be zero before we start rolling out in public?
- stubish 5y agoTo indemnify manufacturers and drivers from the harm, it is going to require extraordinary proof and regulation. Similar to medicine, medical equipment, aircraft. Until that point, it is individual choice to turn it on, and their responsibility for any harm. Same situation as a driver choosing between wearing their eyeglasses or not. What is unclear is which individuals are taking responsibility with driverless trials, or if any indemnification by the state for driverless trials was done ethically.