3 ms·
>People will get even more upset about self-driving tech causing injuries/wrecks/deaths/endangerment vs what human drivers cause. Will they? I mean for exampl
by gretch 4y ago
>People will get even more upset about self-driving tech causing injuries/wrecks/deaths/endangerment vs what human drivers cause.
Will they?
I mean for example Tobacco companies lied and the truth that we know today is that smoking is very very detrimental to their health. It's also detrimental non-smokers in society via second hand smoke, and secondary effects like cigarette butt litter. It doesn't even provide any solid utility like transportation does, it just feels good.
Not only do people still smoke today, people _start_ smoking today given all the information we have.
So when I see behavior like that, I'm not confident that people won't want FSD just because it's 'dangerous'.
- mwigdahl 4y agoYou're 100% correct. People will want FSD for themselves for sure. That won't stop them from blaming the tech companies when they read articles about the cars killing people. Ralph Nader's _Unsafe At Any Speed_ tanked Corvair sales after publication, although his critiques arguably applied to other cars more than the Corvair. The sales of other, similar contemporary cars weren't affected at all. FSD will be incredibly convenient, which means humans will always be motivated to come up a reason, valid or otherwise, that justifies their own use of the tech while allowing themselves to condemn others for mishaps incurred doing the exact same thing. "They didn't maintain it correctly." "They didn't listen to the warnings." "They bought the wrong brand." "They weren't current on software updates."