For the last ten years or so, there's been an argument on this forum (and others) about whether cutting safety in the pursuit of an earlier rollout is a good th

For the last ten years or so, there's been an argument on this forum (and others) about whether cutting safety in the pursuit of an earlier rollout is a good thing. If it's beneficial to humanity, then a few deaths now is massively outweighed by the many deaths avoided by earlier rollout of this tech, or so the argument goes. This seems like a good time to point out that the argument makes too many assumptions to be useful, like that moving fast and breaking things will in fact lead to faster progress overall. In the case of robotaxis, the group moving carefully and deliberately is the clear leader, and many competitors who took the faster/less careful approaches have shuttered along the way. When uber's self-driving division killed someone, for example, it didn't lead to an earlier arrival of self-driving. This is relevant to all sorts of business stuff where we're always asked to move faster than we can reliably move. It's astoundingly easy to forget that sometimes bad rollouts can shutter a project even worse than slow rollouts.