> You are no longer assigning blame for a real incident. You are theorizing about the potential damage that AI drivers can cause in similar situations. I am! B

> You are no longer assigning blame for a real incident. You are theorizing about the potential damage that AI drivers can cause in similar situations. I am! Because I think that's a useful thing to do. > But once you do that, you also have to consider the tradeoffs between human and AI drivers and all the deaths that human drivers cause. Also yes—and one factor right now is that we have a robust EMS system designed to respond to medical emergencies, including road accidents. If the near-future tradeoff is that robotaxis (1) coexist alongside human-piloted cars, rather than replacing them outright, which means road accidents will continue to happen, and (2) robotaxis hinder ambulances from reaching humans in need, including (but not limited to) humans who were struck by cars piloted by other humans, I think that's a poor tradeoff. If it were possible to jump past the messy middle part and immediately get to the "all cars are autopiloted, except ambulances, which aren't hindered by autopiloted vehicles in any way," then of course that sounds great! But it's precisely the messy middle part that worries me. For better or worse, human drivers aren't going away anytime soon. And you rightfully point out that human drivers are prone to accidents. Which is all the more reason that EMS services are critical in the near-term. (But also, counterfactually speaking, it is absolutely the robotaxi's fault that the person died. Had the ambulance been unhindered, they would have had a chance at life after receiving proper medical care; since the ambulance was hindered, they didn't get that care and died as a result.)