4 ms·

What is the psychological term for people that defend defective heavy machinery that are not yet ready for production and yet being tested in production and in

What is the psychological term for people that defend defective heavy machinery that are not yet ready for production and yet being tested in production and in the general public? This will be the most highly unpopular opinion with this audience but if a human drove around in circles potentially blocking other drivers even in a parking lot a cop would pull them over and possibly have them take a sobriety test. If they passed they would get a warning and the incident would be logged with dispatch. Continued behavior would result in a ticket at best and drivers license suspension at worst. Please stop giving exciting tech a break and expect more. I am starting to lean towards requiring hardware and software developers and their respective companies that work on public heavy machinery to have federal certifications that can be revoked if they are moving fast and breaking things in public. Broken navigation in heavy machinery is a risk to the general public. This case was benign but the next one may not be. I expect much more by now. I would expect that if anything cars would be actively protecting humans. If a toddler wanders into the road without a parent I would expect them by now to use a PA speaker to alert people and actively create a blockade around the child with only room for humans to pass, flash all their lights continuously and video stream to safety personnel on duty with the vehicle maker.

Zak 2y ago
There's a belief in some circles that because technologies like self-driving have the potential to save lives, any failure to develop that technology as quickly as possible is akin to manslaughter. I don't think it's a mental illness, just an extreme form of utilitarian ethics combined with an unreasonable faith in the outcome.
- LinuxBender 2y ago
  That makes sense but I think that if they wish to sacrifice humans in the name of innovation that in theory can save lives, it should be tested in locations where all the humans opted-in to this level of sacrifice. Surely there must be a tech community of people that think like this where such in-production testing can occur. Every port of entry into that zone can have checkpoints requiring vehicles and pedestrians to display an opt-in QR code and some incentive to get them to participate. I know we can't waive negligence but at least we could contain the blast radius to a known zone.

Zak 2y ago

There's a belief in some circles that because technologies like self-driving have the potential to save lives, any failure to develop that technology as quickly as possible is akin to manslaughter. I don't think it's a mental illness, just an extreme form of utilitarian ethics combined with an unreasonable faith in the outcome.

LinuxBender 2y ago
That makes sense but I think that if they wish to sacrifice humans in the name of innovation that in theory can save lives, it should be tested in locations where all the humans opted-in to this level of sacrifice. Surely there must be a tech community of people that think like this where such in-production testing can occur. Every port of entry into that zone can have checkpoints requiring vehicles and pedestrians to display an opt-in QR code and some incentive to get them to participate. I know we can't waive negligence but at least we could contain the blast radius to a known zone.