3 ms·
Last I checked this was very much a gray area. I’d expect at least a long investigation into the amount of work and testing put into validating that the self-dr
by bobbruno 4y ago
Last I checked this was very much a gray area. I’d expect at least a long investigation into the amount of work and testing put into validating that the self-driving algorithm operates inside reasonable standards of safe driving. In fact, I expect that, as the industry progresses, the tests for minimal acceptable self-driving safety get more and more standardised.
That doesn’t answer the question of who’s responsible when an accident happens and someone gets hurt or dies - but then, there was a time when animals would be judged and sentenced if they committed a crime under human law. That practice is no longer deemed valid, maybe we need to agree that, if the self-driving car was built with reasonable care, accidents can still happen and it’s no one’s fault.
- bombolo 4y agohttps://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/08/uber-got-off-the-hook-for-killing-a-pedestrian-with-its-self-driving-car/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/08/uber-got-off-the-hook... Well the "long" investigation let uber off the hook despite disabling emergency breaking and put the driver in jail. Which seems to put all the blame on the user and nothing on the makers of the AI.
- still_grokking 4y agoThis makes no sense. If you build a machine and sell it, and this machine kills someone even operated correctly you'll have a problem. A big problem… AI is a machine. So the case is actually quite simple. Regarding the sibling's Uber example: There the argumentation was that the machine was not operated correctly. So this is not a comparable case.