[kordless]

> A full robocar product is only workable if you would need to correct it in decades or even lifetimes of driving.

I had a conversation about this with friends in Germany a few months back.

In most societies, a mistake that causes suffering to another individual is usually 'blamed' on the person causing the suffering. In many cases where causality is obvious, this assignment of blame is fairly straightforward. Example: Bob fell asleep, which caused him to lose control of his car, which hit the bus, which killed a child. Bob is now culpable for the child's family suffering. Bob remains one of many others who share culpability at this point, assuming others are also falling asleep at the wheel. FWIW, 103M people fell asleep at the wheel last year in the US, so Bob will likely have company.

Now put an autonomous piece of software written by company X into Bob's car. Bob engages the autopilot, falls asleep, the autopilot software experiences an error, the software fails to alert Bob, the software loses control of the car, which hits a bus, which kills a child. Who is culpable for the family's suffering now? The software? Company X?

The only way for company X to both a) allow Bob to fall asleep and b) bear the culpability for a family's suffering is to get the software to the point it only makes mistakes in a timeframe that is, at a minimum, several orders of magnitude greater than Bob making the same mistake.

The logic goes that, once a company's software kills a child, it's going to be pretty hard to keep the public from reacting negatively, even though overall suffering will decrease. The only option company X is to require Bob to accept he is "driving" the car and bear the culpability of any suffering the car's software may cause, or alternately, be ready to pay a substantial settlement that offsets suffering.

[tass]

Why can't it be the car manufacturers who are at fault? http://blog.caranddriver.com/volvo-will-take-responsibility-...

[ghaff]

It's an interesting question in that properly maintained and properly driven automobiles do have accidents that are clearly no one's fault--skidding on a patch of ice, deer running into the road, etc. Perhaps a more skilled or more cautious driver could avoid such an accident--or not. I'm hard-pressed to think of many other examples where a product used as intended will nonetheless cause harm to the user or others with some finite probability--but aren't considered the fault of the manufacturer. Pharmaceuticals and other types of medical equipment probably come closest. (Though drug companies certainly face lawsuits for side effects all the time.)

[sokoloff]

Chainsaws and handguns are probably other examples.

Fast food is another. (Alcohol, tobacco?)

Side note: I would argue that your patch of ice example is not nearly as good as the deer one. Skidding on a patch of ice and crashing is, IMO, simply driving too fast for conditions.

[ghaff]

Fast food etc. though is more "stuff that's bad for you taken to excess" as opposed to something that can randomly get in an accident though.

I agree the deer is the better example. You can have patches of unexpected black ice though. I've skidded a few times though never had an accident.

There's certainly gear one uses in activities that have some inherent danger like your chainsaw example. I guesxs things like skis and helmets could be another. The difference with an AI though is that it's the machinery itself that is making the decisions.

[hackuser]

Liability will not depend on current laws; it will be determined in legislatures after intense lobbying by manufacturers. They will claim that without liability protection, the government will stifle innovation and economic growth.

Perhaps clauses banning class action suits and requiring arbitration will help them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483024

[zyxley]

> get the software to the point it only makes mistakes in a timeframe that is, at a minimum, several orders of magnitude greater than Bob making the same mistake

That seems to be more or less the case with the Google cars. 300,000 miles, with no accidents caused by the cars. Of course, so far that's limited to more-or-less good weather so far.

[kgwgk]

Unless you think Bob was causing accidents every thousand miles, I don't see how Google cars are "several orders of magnitude" better. Leaving aside the good-weather/known-roads aspect, of course.

[mikeash]

The average accident rate in the US is something like one per 250,000 miles driven. (The average driver drives 15,000 miles per year, and goes about 18 years between accidents.)

So indeed, we can't draw much conclusion about the safety of Google's car relative to the average driver yet, except to say that it's not catastrophically worse.

[the-dude]

This argument has been beaten to death. But another line of reasoning really struck me this week after seeing the Tesla collision avoidance.

I think before deathly accidents become a problem for self driving cars/manufacturers, the public will already be convinced of it numerous benefits.