[thinkmoore]

While I agree some of the early arguments are a bit weak, I liked the author's discussion of the parallels to medical research---I think it gets across why some (including myself) think its worth approaching this exciting new technology with a slightly less cavalier attitude:

In developing cancer drugs that could save millions of lives—just like robot cars are promised to do—we understand we can’t ignore problems in clinical and human trials. We can’t cut corners just because we want to rush a life-saving product to market.

“The perfect is the enemy of the good,” as famously declared by Voltaire, is also a common reaction to ethical critiques of autonomous cars. But this is a straw-man argument: no one is demanding perfection, just due diligence, especially if death is on the line. Just as with cancer drugs or anything else on the market, a product doesn’t have to be perfect, though that’s not an excuse to not be more careful.

Look at seatbelts as an iconic safety device: even they aren’t absolved of all sins, just because they save a lot of lives overall. Unlatch buttons that are too large (and can be accidentally bumped open) or too easily opened have sparked lawsuits and massive recalls. These aren’t really malfunctions but only bad designs, and bad designs can kill.

The extra care needed to avoid these problems doesn’t have to take a Herculean effort or stall research and development. It just means investing some time to think it through and properly set expectations. This could save lives, and every one counts. (Just ask their families.)

[ergothus]

> its worth approaching this exciting new technology with a slightly less cavalier attitude

While I'm a huge fan of vehicle automation, I have plenty of concern that it not be commonly used until it is in fact safer overall (I allow that come circumstances become less safe while others become more). I'm not sure what "cavalier" attitude you refer to? Where, exactly, are people claiming there is no concern for safety? What legislation has been passed that is seeing through rose-colored glasses?

Heck, the death referenced in the headline got lots of attention, both in criticism and in praise of automation, so I can see a lot of conclusions from that but "cavalier" isn't one of them. Looks to me like all sorts of caution is being considered, proclaimed, and hammered.

So what cavalier attitude is there that this article, with it's admittedly weak arguments, is good to be fighting?

[thinkmoore]

I think the idea of releasing a vehicle safety system that you apparently have little enough faith in to call a "beta," and marketing said system under the name "Autopilot" and then acting surprised when people treat it as a reliable autonomous control system are pretty cavalier. I was also referring to the attitude (evident in this thread) that since there was a warning it is completely the drivers fault. I certainly think this technology will improve safety. But we should certainly consider what role the technology itself played in accidents---whether because driver's aren't using it as intended or it has a design defect (no sensing at windscreen height).

I get the sense that a lot of people feel like since the intent is good and driver's are opting in that basically anything goes---which seems pretty cavalier to me.

[Symmetry]

I'm imagining a world in which the first automobeal manufacturer to try to introduce seat belts had to first convince the government that they were a good idea before they introduced them and all I'm seeing is a huge number of extra deaths for a negligible gain. Customers weren't particularly demanding safer cars back then and barriers to their development might have but the whole thing back by years.

The existing model where car manufacturers are basically free to add whatever safety features they want and eventually the government drafts standards when thing have settled down has worked very well so far in improving automobile safety.

[lanevorockz]

By Cavalier atitude you mean very slowly while thousands of people die every year.

[takeda]

You know very well what he meant.

Just because this technology MAY[1] save lives in the future doesn't mean you can sacrifice others for greater good.

This is also the reason why we don't allow for experimenting on humans in the medical field.

[1] This is something that while I am fan of Tesla I'm still convinced Google is doing this properly i.e. build autonomous system from the scratch. What Tesla offers is an autonomous system that is good enough to make driver confident about it and pay less attention (e.g. watching Harry Potter movie while driving), but not fool proof that it would prevent accidents that regular driver could easily avoid.

[ergothus]

> You know very well what he meant.

Not the above poster, but no, I don't. One thing I'm NOT seeing in the articles (for- and against-) on vehicle automation is a cavalier attitude. (What I _have_ seen is a lot of "who do we sue" arguments that haven't worried about total human misery/safety, but we'll ignore that for the purposes of this argument and only consider those who HAVE considered human safety)

Can you clarify?

[madmax96]

>doesn't mean you can sacrifice others for greater good.

Nobody forced them to use the driverless features. The driver took a risk and died.

EDIT: newline after quote for formatting