5 ms·

> criminally liable for every death. The fact that people generally consume drugs voluntarily and make that decision after being informed about most of the kno

• sokoloff 2y ago
  Imagine that in 2031, FSD cars could exactly halve all aspects of auto crashes (minor, major, single car, multi car, vs pedestrian, fatal/non, etc.) Would you want FSD software to be developed or not? If you do, do you think holding devs or companies criminally liable for half of all crashes is the best way to ensure that progress happens?
  • blackoil 2y ago
    Say cars have near 0 casualty in northern hemisphere but occasionally fails for cars driving topsy turvy in south. If company knew about it and chooses to ignore it because of profits, yes they should be charged criminally.
  • ywvcbk 2y ago
    From a utilitarian perspective sure, you might be right but how do you exempt those companies from civil liability and make it impossible for victims/their families to sue the manufacturer? Might be legally tricky (driver/owner can explicitly/implicitly agree with the EULA or other agreements, imposing that on third parties wouldn’t be right).
    • Majromax 2y ago
      > how do you exempt those companies from civil liability and make it impossible for victims/their families to sue the manufacturer? I don't think anyone in this thread has talked about an exemption from civil liability (sue for money), just criminal liability (go to jail). Civil liability is the far less controversial issue because it's transferred all the time: governments even mandate that drivers carry insurance for this purpose. With civil liability transfer, imperfect FSD can still make economic sense. Just as an insurance company needs to collect enough premium to pay claims, the FSD manufacturer would need to reserve enough revenue to pay its expected claims. In this case, FSD doesn't even need to be better than humans to make economic sense, in the same way that bad drivers can still buy (expensive) insurance.
      • ywvcbk 2y ago
        > just criminal liability (go to jail). That just seems like a theoretical possibility (even if that). I don’t see how any engineer or even someone in management could go to jail unless intent or gross negligence can be proven. > drivers carry insurance for this purpose. The mandatory limit is extremely low in many US states. > expected claims That seems like the problem. It might take a while until we reach an equilibrium of some sort. > that bad drivers can still buy That’s still capped by the amount of coverage + total assets held by that bad driver. In Tesl’s case there is no real limit (without legislation/established precedent). Juries/courts would likely be influenced by that fact as well.
      • DennisP 2y ago
        In fact, if you buy your insurance from Tesla, you effectively do put civil responsibility for FSD back in their hands.
• ekianjo 2y ago
  > make that decision after being informed about most of the known risks Like for the COVID-19 vaccines? Experimental yet given to billions without ever showing them a consent form.
  • ywvcbk 2y ago
    Yes, but worse. Nobody physically forced anyone to get vaccinated so you still had some choice. Of course legally banning individuals from using public roads or sidewalks unless they give up their right to sue Tesla/etc. might be an option.