| I am saying such a scenario may possibly exist, not necessarily that it does exist. Mercedes could be increasing the number of overall deaths by limiting the availability of the feature and still be reducing their liability for when the system is in use. Let’s say with FSD on all the time that instead of 30,000 people a year dying that only 20,000 people a year die. Would a company accept the liability? What if the death rate was 10,000? 1,000? 100? If FSD could prevent 29,900 deaths a year but still see deadly failures 100 times a year, would a company say “I accept the liability”? So you see, perhaps it’s crucial that companies not be able to be sued out of existence even if a few hundred people a year are dying in exceptional cases under their software, in order to prevent over a quarter million deaths and untold number of maimings every decade. Also consider in this ethical and legal liability dilemma that these populations are not necessarily subsets, but could be disjoint populations. |