4 ms·

The big problem is that current liability is relatively limited by fleet diversity. Toyota has enough variation in their fleet that even if a floor mat can cau

by roc 14y ago

The big problem is that current liability is relatively limited by fleet diversity. Toyota has enough variation in their fleet that even if a floor mat can cause a stuck accelerator, it's only an issue for certain models of certain cars. Similarly, GM only had certain models with sidesaddle gas tanks, so even if someone causes an outcry with a doctored video, it only applied to some models of some vehicles. But if Google had a bug, would they have the same variation in driving logic to limit the scope of the fallout? Wouldn't it more likely relate to all their cars? What if an unforeseen environmental event compromises sensors in a way they didn't code for? Say a rare particulate cloud due a mining operation, or building collapse, that doesn't blanket the sensors with noise, but merely distorts their readings such that a large spate of crashes occur. What if a more mundane overflow or date bug causes enough slightly-less-optimal decisions to be made that there's a jump in accidents that can be traced back to that bug? What if someone discovers a 'blind-spot' in Google's logic that could be leveraged to reliably cause relatively-low-risk accidents and black-hats use that to perpetrate a sudden and distributed insurance fraud scam. Would they even be able to withstand the fallout of a "massive jump in Google car accident rates" story, until the truth was ferreted out? What happens to Google if that gets shared online? Is Google going to be able to withstand the fallout of the public realizing their cars can be scammed unless they're diligently watched? (which defeats the entire purpose of having purchased a driverless car)

wtvanhest 14y ago
All of those edge cases are what courts are for.
- roc 14y ago
  The question is: at scale, is that a risk a company can reasonably carry on its own? And is that a risk we want to see a court handle in the usual way? A massive manufacturing failure run through the courts can ruin an automaker. If such a failure was related to an inherent risk to driverless cars, it might ruin the industry if we allow it to run through the courts in the usual manner. (an automaker is ruined, premiums for remaining makers explode, it becomes near-impossible to turn a profit, the market collapses) But the net impact of driverless cars might include broad social gains, rather than simply direct profit to the maker. [1] So if the risks materialize into a large charge quite early on, absent some mediation by society writ large, allowing that to be processed by the courts normally could spell the end to the industry and leave society at a net loss. [1] driverless cars are likely to send impaired/distracted driving accidents trending towards zero. That's a social gain even for people who never own a car. But it's a gain that wouldn't directly translate into profits for the makers of driverless cars, that they could use to offset the incredibly high insurance premiums they would have to carry, to survive a fifty-year-storm sort of risk showing up five or ten years into the life of the company.
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    I understand that the scale might be an issue, but I really think you are worrying about it too early. 1st, Google will likely transfer all IP to a subsidiary which they own all the equity to. 2nd, If a lawsuit takes place and it is a specific make/model of car and it is due to world wide failures, it will likely take down 1 manufacturer, not the whole industry. 3rd, in the event that situation does raise risk profiles of automakers (more likely represented by higher require rates of returns for stock investors over insurance premiums), there will still be somebody who will try it. The reason is that if someone succeeds, they will have 100% of the market while everyone else will have 0% of the market for cars. 4th, if Google's subsidiary is sued and goes bankrupt, the IP will be sold in an IP auction which will likely go to someone else who will create self driving cars. The end game is self driving cars, how we get there is anyone's guess, but edge cases will be handled by courts. I can't imagine any scenario which cannot be resolved. In the event all scenarios fail, legislators will hopefully step in and create an imperfect, but practical framework.

by roc 14y ago

wtvanhest 14y ago

All of those edge cases are what courts are for.

roc 14y ago
The question is: at scale, is that a risk a company can reasonably carry on its own? And is that a risk we want to see a court handle in the usual way? A massive manufacturing failure run through the courts can ruin an automaker. If such a failure was related to an inherent risk to driverless cars, it might ruin the industry if we allow it to run through the courts in the usual manner. (an automaker is ruined, premiums for remaining makers explode, it becomes near-impossible to turn a profit, the market collapses) But the net impact of driverless cars might include broad social gains, rather than simply direct profit to the maker. [1] So if the risks materialize into a large charge quite early on, absent some mediation by society writ large, allowing that to be processed by the courts normally could spell the end to the industry and leave society at a net loss. [1] driverless cars are likely to send impaired/distracted driving accidents trending towards zero. That's a social gain even for people who never own a car. But it's a gain that wouldn't directly translate into profits for the makers of driverless cars, that they could use to offset the incredibly high insurance premiums they would have to carry, to survive a fifty-year-storm sort of risk showing up five or ten years into the life of the company.
- wtvanhest 14y ago
  I understand that the scale might be an issue, but I really think you are worrying about it too early. 1st, Google will likely transfer all IP to a subsidiary which they own all the equity to. 2nd, If a lawsuit takes place and it is a specific make/model of car and it is due to world wide failures, it will likely take down 1 manufacturer, not the whole industry. 3rd, in the event that situation does raise risk profiles of automakers (more likely represented by higher require rates of returns for stock investors over insurance premiums), there will still be somebody who will try it. The reason is that if someone succeeds, they will have 100% of the market while everyone else will have 0% of the market for cars. 4th, if Google's subsidiary is sued and goes bankrupt, the IP will be sold in an IP auction which will likely go to someone else who will create self driving cars. The end game is self driving cars, how we get there is anyone's guess, but edge cases will be handled by courts. I can't imagine any scenario which cannot be resolved. In the event all scenarios fail, legislators will hopefully step in and create an imperfect, but practical framework.