4 ms·
This may be a slightly weird thing to say and maybe I wont put it very eloquently but I'm somewhat of a believer in taking risks that can endanger lives now if
by dopamean 3y ago
This may be a slightly weird thing to say and maybe I wont put it very eloquently but I'm somewhat of a believer in taking risks that can endanger lives now if it means doing something that is a net positive for everyone later. I'm not great historian but I think the aviation industry is a good example of this. Basically every plane crash that resulted in passengers dying has led to changes, and very often improvements, in air safety. Whether that be a change in the mechanical, software, or human systems that govern aviation. Globally these things are taken quite seriously because everyone understands how important it is. So it's odd to me to see such cavalier attitudes taken when it comes to self driving cars. Why not take safety more seriously? It will earn the industry a ton of trust and it could save lives.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago> Why not take safety more seriously? Because safety is a cost, not a feature. Air travel and sea travel did not get safer because some companies got together and decided to spend a little money to advance society. Ships sank and planes crashed frequently. Things got safer because governments took action. Look at the 737 MAX. The cause of the crashes wouldn't have been investigated and Boeing wouldn't have fixed their plane if governments hadn't taken action. At scale, companies do not value human life, so regulations add costs to change the incentives. Otherwise human life is just another tragedy of the commons.
- dopamean 3y agoI don't think that's a totally fair characterization of the history of air safety but I do mostly agree with your point. Government has to take action and right now they're just permitting anything... or that's what it looks like.