You are mixing competence with agenda. Which is it? If you are concerned it is not as competent as a human, fine, that's defensible. But that's not what you s

You are mixing competence with agenda. Which is it? If you are concerned it is not as competent as a human, fine, that's defensible. But that's not what you said. You said you were concerned about its agenda, that it would be intentionally prioritize the lives of its passengers over other lives (and even suggested it would prioritize the preservation of the vehicle itself more highly) you said.... >I think the real concern that the car is actually programmed explicitly to kill you if it has to, to ensure it's own safety or the safety of it's riders or something. My comment was about that....the "agenda" issue, which is 100% what your comment was about. To be clear (if I wasn't in a previous message) There is NO incentive for it to be explicitly programmed to do that, since the company could be equally sued by pedestrians as it could by passengers. There IS incentive for a human to behave that way, since natural selection built a self protection motivation deeply into the human brain. There is also very strong incentive AGAINST prioritizing protection of the vehicle itself over any human -- passenger or not. For both human drivers and driving software programmers. Anyway, you seem to be changing your argument to one of competence, which to me is a completely different discussion. (I think self driving cars are better at some things and humans are better at other things, but eventually cars will be better -- or at least equal -- for the vast majority)