While I agree with you, my hypothetical scenario above was deliberately constructed to avoid ascribing worth to distinct people, and only measuring how much of

While I agree with you, my hypothetical scenario above was deliberately constructed to avoid ascribing worth to distinct people, and only measuring how much of the outcome was the result of their negligent or deliberate behavior. We can come to the same conclusions while still assuming all lives have equal worth. All we have to do is determine where the fault lies. If a person jumps out in front of my car because they want to die, that's not my fault. If I run a stop sign and t bone a person it is. The same if I'm a computer in the trunk of a Tesla, and we want to be sure that if we are going to construct an environment where machines call the shots that they're less dangerous, so we should be sure that at the very least they're causing less accidents than people, not simply that they're participating in less accidents. Just the number of deaths doesn't give us this measure, it doesn't actually tell us how safe the machine is. What we ultimately want is primarily that the machine is less often at fault than a human driver, secondarily but very importantly that the machine avoids harming others even when those others are negligent and at fault, and also can avoid harming people in situations deliberately caused by others, particularly if those harmed weren't those causing the situation.