Well, the problem is that our AI systems don't have a clue. At all. They are classification systems. They have no understanding whatsoever of anything around

Well, the problem is that our AI systems don't have a clue. At all. They are classification systems. They have no understanding whatsoever of anything around them. Which means it is likely that the AV which is the subject of this accident didn't understand that it hit a person, what a person is, how a person could be stuck under the car, how a person could be dragged by a car, how a person could be hurt by a car, how a person is more fragile than a car, why it might be better to not move in any of the above contexts, how a human driver would more likely get out of the car and make sure it was safe to move (and render first aid), etc. We are calling this crap "Artificial Intelligence". It isn't. It is not at all. It's a parlor trick devoid of anything that resembles understanding. A dog understands the world far better than the most advanced self-driving-car. This lack of understanding issue carries with it layers of significance. For example, a human driver understands consequences to his/her actions. Yes, of course, there are a-holes in every crown...yet, the vast majority of people are good. If that were not the case society would not function as it does. Lacking the concept and understanding of consequences, just assigning scores to things and path planning accordingly, removes important decision-making layers and drives suboptimal AV decisions. You can add responsibility, fear, financial consequences, emotion, care, consideration and a whole host of human condition realities to the list of important factors completely lacking from AV's today. Driving is fine when reality is reduced to easy-to-classify monotonically varying experiences. Not so easy when reality becomes, well, real.