It'll be the insurance megacorps vs the automotive megacorps. There's no suggestion that the obligation to maintain 3rd party insurance will disappear.
But if you get into an uber and it kills someone that's fine? Why does putting an overworked and easily distracted human in control absolve you of consequences more than putting an occasionally broken ai?
Your assumption that 'AI' can replace a human in this context is wrong. I realize most people have grown up with a relentless anthropomorphization of computers, so I understand why one might make it.
Despite the hype, they don't work, and aren't going to any time soon.
If an auto maker is running a scam by selling features that don't work, doesn't it make more sense to go after the scammers for the deaths their scam lead to?
this is exactly why we're never getting full self-driving cars, whether or not they are actually safer. no manufacturer is going to take on strict liability for 100,000's of auto-driving cars let loose in the hands of legally immune "operator"/customers.
but what's the point of even having self-driving cars if you the user are still on the hook for some hallucination or oversight of the product of that manufacturer? you would never cede full control in this case. and why pay $10K, $20K extra for the privilege of something you can't use?
15 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 53.0 ms ] threadDespite the hype, they don't work, and aren't going to any time soon.
The FPGA link here is an interesting window into why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37552365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33402603
but what's the point of even having self-driving cars if you the user are still on the hook for some hallucination or oversight of the product of that manufacturer? you would never cede full control in this case. and why pay $10K, $20K extra for the privilege of something you can't use?
exactly. there's no point.