The precautionary principle is already too conservative. You don't need to level up to a *speculative* precautionary principle.
Conversation
Replying to
We’re not yet ready for Asimov’s Laws, but should be thinking ahead.
2
Replying to
. Asimov's Laws made for some moderately good fiction, but are a terminally clueless way to think of engineering risk management
1
3
Replying to
I disagree. If society accepts ~ 3 laws as a norm (or regulation), products that violate norms define risk / liability of developer.
3
Replying to
In a real human society, a "3 laws" effort will capture the spirit of "too big to fail" incumbency support in general.
2
Replying to
2) I assume Google did a thorough legal review, worked with, testified lobbied on car legislation. Part of normal builder’s process.
1
1
Replying to
That's the level at which I'd like to see risks addressed. Innovators trusted enough by society to handle principle-agent hazard
1
Replying to
And relevant regulators alert enough to think about new innovations in their domain with open-mindedness+caution.
Replying to
And an assumption that SV need not secede from the US or create its own off shore mini-state to innovate.

