4 ms·
As discussed in the other recent thread, the self-driving industry loves to frame the question this way - How safe are they compared to human drivers? Their con
by wolverine876 3y ago
As discussed in the other recent thread, the self-driving industry loves to frame the question this way - How safe are they compared to human drivers? Their consistency and the energy they put into it should indicate how intentional and strategic it is.
To understand it, don't be swept along by their framing. Sophisticated communicators - and we can be certain that these businesses have hired some of them - as well as researchers know that framing the discussion is 75% of the battle. Once people accept your framing, you've won.
The questions to ask are: Why do they like this framing? What other ways are there to frame the questions? How do professionals (e.g., highway safety regulators) frame the safety issues?
- yreg 3y agoWhy is it a bad framing? I would frame the question the same way.
- wolverine876 3y agoI didn't say it was bad; I said it was intentional and strategic, and it's important to understand the intent and strategy. > I would frame the question the same way. As I also said, when people accept their framing, they've already won the debate.
- Daz1 3y agoWhy did you type three paragraphs of nothing? What is the 'correct' way to frame this question?
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoThe correct way is "who goes to jail if a driverless car kills a child?"
- greiskul 3y agoWhy? Who goes to jail if a child trips and falls down stairs? Should we ban stairs? If there were no negligence from the owner in maintaining the car, and no negligence in the manufacturer, why do you care if anyone goes to jail? It won't bring the child back. If self driving cars reduce the number of fatalities, and specially if they reduce them significantly, would you really be against them just because there won't be an easy target to put in jail if an accident happens?
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoIf you drive a car that kills a child, you (potentially) go to jail. If you are in a car that is driven by Waymo and it kills a child, the car drives away with no repercussions. Are you really advocating a world where we change the laws to give Waymo a license to kill? That won't ever, ever happen. Also, "no negligence from the manufacturer" is very much begging the question. Read the typical software EULA, it is negligent by default.
- brabel 3y agoYour argument is so terrible it's hard to understand how someone can actually believe that. Is your main concern really who is to blame for an accident, rather than how to avoid such accidents more effectively in the first place??? OMG please try to change your mindset, what a horrible way to approach this problem.
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoAre you claiming we should just abandon all manslaughter laws, #yolo, in the name of "progress" and market capitalization? Really?
- Dylan16807 3y ago> If you drive a car that kills a child, you (potentially) go to jail. If you weren't being negligent, the odds of going to jail are very low. We can and should have the same "potential" for the people designing the car's software. But Waymo seems to be developing their code properly so it would never trigger for them. > Are you really advocating a world where we change the laws to give Waymo a license to kill? Everyone already has a license to kill if the activity is sufficiently sanctioned and the particular death is sufficiently unforeseeable. > Read the typical software EULA, it is negligent by default. What? Disclaiming liability isn't negligence.