Any argument against self-driving cars that brings up the trolley problem is also an argument against humans driving cars.
-
-
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
Humans can be held accountable for their choices behind the wheel, robots cannot
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Honk_City @CurlOfGradient
"Held accountable" means punished. Would you be okay with AI drivers if the AI could suffer, and therefore be punished?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @WomanCorn @CurlOfGradient
If that gives them incentive to not mess up then sure. It goes beyond punishment though, there are also questions about financial liability that need to be answered. Who is "at fault" when an AI kills someone? Who pays for damage and medical bills?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is a silly distraction. Insurance pays. Insurance always pays. We have a robust framework for insurance, and can beef it up if we want. Criminal law may be an issue (it's not, really) but civil law we have sorted.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @EndOfSequence @Honk_City and
Imagine if we were consistent in this objection. "I like the idea of brakes, but who pays when they fail?" "Could we find a way to punish brakes?" "I don't know how insurance companies could ever figure out how to cover brake failure."
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @EndOfSequence @Honk_City and
New technology is scary, but we can cover the risk involved in tornadoes, fires, and sometimes even floods. Acts of god we can handle, but a vehicle that doesn't drive drunk thwarts us?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
I guess this may not be obvious, so I'll also mention; things may be chaotic for a while, but iff SDVs cause less deaths/accidents than human drivers, insurance will become cheaper over time. The insurance company that (correctly) figures this out first gets the richest.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.