[JoshCole]

You question my credentials, while quoting one of my premises. This is, implicitly, an ad hominem argument against the premise you quoted.

In addition to that, you're arguing against a strawman. I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update. In fact, I explicitly agreed with this claim.

[buvanshak]

>I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update...

The point you are missing is that while update might be slightly enhance safety, the negative, unpredictable impact might be catastrophic. because one is planned and other one is not.

[JoshCole]

No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential. You quoted text in which I explicitly acknowledge the danger of updates. Read it. Also, read further down where I explicitly ask that I not be taken the wrong way, because good points were made.

My acknowledgement only make sense if I agree that there is some level of danger in each update. That is why you're addressing a straw man.

I feel like there is a language barrier:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Or maybe you're being uncharitable with me, because as you put it in our other thread you find the things I've said "stupid". So you are just guessing that I hold the stupidest possible belief you can ascribe me, even when I tell you otherwise.

[buvanshak]

>No, the point you're pretending I'm missing is that there is this potential

No. You are not missing the potential. But you do not seem to get difference in magnitude. One is incremental, reviewed safety enhancement, Other is unpredictably catastrophic.

You only seem to grasp very superficial aspects of my comments, which is why I requested to give some thought before responding. So I think there is some kind of barrier. But it is not of language. but for lack of a better word, I think it is of a lack of enough shared sensibilities..

[JoshCole]

You're projecting that the projected future upside isn't superhuman. My comment projects that it is. We disagree on projected benefits.

Right now human driving is one of the leading causes of death. I believe that technology can eventually eliminate this as a leading cause of death. So I project a much greater potential upside. I also figure this is a matter of time and effort applied to the problem. Or in other words, there is a finite amount of time before an update brings the car to this point. This puts a ceiling on my mental tabulation of the amount of risk endured prior to achieving an extremely good end. So despite the severe risks, the limited nature of that risk allows me to rule in favor of taking the risk despite its presence.

You're assuming that I haven't pictured a sweeping update which adds the car murdering anyone who was unaware. I have! Your assumption is incorrect.

And if I was being superficial, I would have answered that yes, I'm a software developer. But its a fallacious appeal to authority.