[rschneid]

Safety of systems isn't binary, so what's the risk profile?

Newer medical treatments have higher risk, just like experimental transportation methods carry greater risk.

Everyone gets sick/injured and everyone needs to get around, so some suffering in the name of advancing these endeavors seems both inevitable and tolerable. The question is to what degree?

Controlling access to and fallout from these automated driving systems is a temporary priority since the roads they're testing on are far more 'public' than an individual's body undergoing new medical treatment, but the long-term priority must be on getting the systems as safe or safer than other human drivers on aggregate. That will happen, sooner or later, and I'd rather see it sooner as long as the cost of the race isn't catastrophe. The only way to advance is to let it learn...

[ethanbond]

Yep, and when there is a dozen companies taking their obligations to the public extremely seriously, loading their cars with at least as many sensors as it takes to operate safely for the R&D phases, deploying in limited phases and not directly into the hands of the public, and not marketing their unproven tech as “Full Self Driving,” I think it’s completely reasonable to single out the one company who’s not doing any of that.