5 ms·

They're accidents because the alternative is that they're purposeful and we have an entirely separate criminal framework for that. The "expert" cited is a psyc

They're accidents because the alternative is that they're purposeful and we have an entirely separate criminal framework for that. The "expert" cited is a psychologist, not a linguist, and in particular a psychologist who apparently lost his father in such an accident. This is about choosing more emotional language in the hope that somehow this magically fixes a societal problem, which it won't. When we re-frame this so that we're emphasising blaming the driver, we go back to the era when nothing was improved because well - it's just the driver's fault, so if they're alive we use retributive justice and if not the problem has solved itself. That simply does not work. We need to identify how we can break the chain because these are accidents, there is no intelligent actor purposefully causing them so such interventions can be effective. Example: Use of road design to slow traffic => Cars and trucks move more slowly, pedestrians are less likely to be struck by traffic and less likely to die if hit. That would do nothing if this was purposeful, if there was intent, but there isn't and so European nations which use narrower roads to slow traffic see significant reductions in deaths and injuries.

stefan_ 3y ago
This is an odd point to try to argue in the context of driverless cars. Of course the behaviour is fully intentional in the sense that the car will act the same way again when presented with similar circumstances. All flaws in driverless cars are systematic and repeating flaws, not random human driver behaviour.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  But even here, this wasn't the intent this is just what happened. Nobody was like "You know what we ought to do? Make sure we cause more injuries to a person who was knocked down" they just designed this software without considering this scenario and so there's a significant improvement to make here. Lots of causes of human accidents are systemic and repeatable, but that doesn't make them intentional. Take trips and falls for example, it's possible for a human to just get super unlucky and trip over for essentially no reason, but in most cases there are repeatable causes, we can fix those causes and reduce how often trips and falls occur, but the trips and falls were accidents, it's not helpful to pretend that's the wrong word.
- amenhotep 3y ago
  This is an odd point to try to argue in the context of machines. Of course the behaviour isn't fully intentional, it's a car, it has no mens rea. If I get in an accident because my car has a predictable manufacturing flaw where if I shift into third, then first, then fourth, then first again, then fifth, all the wheels fall off, does the fact that the exact same thing would happen again when repeated in similar circumstances mean my crash was an intentional decision by the car rather than an accident? You do raise an interesting point about how these behaviours are repeatable and predictable rather than random oopsies, though. I think it's more defensible to use that to emphasise that every accident a driverless car has, unless caused by a human, is a manufacturing flaw. It may not be inaccurate to say that the Waymo car had an accident where it dragged a person along underneath it, but it is much more accurate to say that Waymo cars had a manufacturing flaw where they would drag people underneath them, and an accident was caused by this flaw.

stefan_ 3y ago

This is an odd point to try to argue in the context of driverless cars. Of course the behaviour is fully intentional in the sense that the car will act the same way again when presented with similar circumstances. All flaws in driverless cars are systematic and repeating flaws, not random human driver behaviour.

tialaramex 3y ago
But even here, this wasn't the intent this is just what happened. Nobody was like "You know what we ought to do? Make sure we cause more injuries to a person who was knocked down" they just designed this software without considering this scenario and so there's a significant improvement to make here. Lots of causes of human accidents are systemic and repeatable, but that doesn't make them intentional. Take trips and falls for example, it's possible for a human to just get super unlucky and trip over for essentially no reason, but in most cases there are repeatable causes, we can fix those causes and reduce how often trips and falls occur, but the trips and falls were accidents, it's not helpful to pretend that's the wrong word.
amenhotep 3y ago
This is an odd point to try to argue in the context of machines. Of course the behaviour isn't fully intentional, it's a car, it has no mens rea. If I get in an accident because my car has a predictable manufacturing flaw where if I shift into third, then first, then fourth, then first again, then fifth, all the wheels fall off, does the fact that the exact same thing would happen again when repeated in similar circumstances mean my crash was an intentional decision by the car rather than an accident? You do raise an interesting point about how these behaviours are repeatable and predictable rather than random oopsies, though. I think it's more defensible to use that to emphasise that every accident a driverless car has, unless caused by a human, is a manufacturing flaw. It may not be inaccurate to say that the Waymo car had an accident where it dragged a person along underneath it, but it is much more accurate to say that Waymo cars had a manufacturing flaw where they would drag people underneath them, and an accident was caused by this flaw.