Safe Streets Rebel’s protest comes after automatic vehicles were blamed for incidents including crashing into a bus and running over a dog. City officials in June said…

  • xavier666@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    You mean those companies who will lobby and spend a fraction of their wealth to make those lawsuits disappear?

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is that different from the current system of large vehicular insurance companies spending a fraction of their wealth to make their lawsuits disappear?

      • xavier666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s no different at all. We should have stronger laws for such scenarios.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, but in the context of letting computers drive, I feel like people want to enforce this perfect system of liability on automated systems where we already have an existing criminal and civil legal system as is that is designed to nowhere near the same standard for humans.

          Why are we willing to say that it is unacceptable that no computer can kill people on the road when almost 43,000 die in the USA due to humans driving?

          • xavier666@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why are we willing to say that it is unacceptable that no computer can kill people on the road when almost 43,000 die in the USA due to humans driving?

            This part is bogus to me as well. My friend who used to work in self-driving said that when self driving can be “just” better than human driving, technology has won. In statistical terms, it means having slightly lesser fatalities than humans (<43k fatalities with respect to the num of human drivers).

            Now it’s up for debate lesser by how much exactly. Just 5% reduction or 50% reduction. If we want to go for 99% reduction, we should stop building self-driving tech altogether.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If we want to go for 99% reduction, we should stop building self-driving tech altogether.

              So ban all forms of driving?

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Uh, because software can be fixed and those deaths can be prevented? How the hell can you ask this question seriously? I can’t believe how many people are willing to blatantly shill for these companies, even if it gets people fucking killed.

            And no you can’t claim to be saving lives because these driverless cars very often kill people in situations that a human driver would easily navigate.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And until the system is perfect, let people die on the worse system?

              This isn’t me shilling for a company, this is me comparing two flawed systems.