[ameister14]

It doesn't commit the fallacy of whataboutism - it's the same issue and a direct substitute.

Any safety incident is unacceptable is not a realistic standard, and I am not sure why a lower rate of incident is not a convincing argument for you. Yes, getting killed by a robot leaves you no less dead, but if 5 people are killed by robots where 10 people would have been killed by people, isn't that a net positive?

[NoZebra120vClip]

If 10 people were killed by people, then there could be 10 wrongful-death lawsuits and 10 car insurance claims and 10 cases of liability and 10 criminal investigations and 10 driver's licenses sanctioned, where each and every human behind the wheel must accept responsibility and assume liability for the harm caused to other human beings, and/or property.

If 5 people are killed by SDCs, then 5 executors will need to visit our website, create an account, and submit a request for reimbursement for funeral expenses. Please upload your death certificate and all itemized receipts. Our best AI will absolutely make its best efforts to find out which remote human operator caused those cars to begin driving, and then we will launch an internal investigation into whether their pay should be cut, or maybe we'll put them on paid leave instead and connect them with a grief counselor. Thank you for choosing WayMo. Scan this QR code to install our app!

[whats_a_quasar]

You're introducing a new claim, that it will be harder for families to have justice and be compensated when a death is caused by a robotaxi rather than a human. I don't see any reason to assume this. If anything, it ought to be easier to get a rich, large, well known corporate robotaxi company to provide compensation than a random individual who might even be driving uninsured

[CatWChainsaw]

The rich corporation is going to use their riches to exhaust your money supply on lawyers, and in the chance that you survive that test of endurance, offer a measly settlement with an NDA attached.

[NoZebra120vClip]

That's not my only claim. The additional gotcha is that the supposedly responsible human being is remote from the incident, and the regulators may find it more difficult to determine responsibility and assign liability to someone somewhere inside some very large company with a lot of network connectivity and an equal helping of plausible deniability. Compare that with a human at the wheel who hopefully carries a driver's license and proof of insurance?

Anyway, a "rich, large, well-known" company is always going to calculate the cost of a human life taken, vs. the cost of doing business, and run the margin right up to a rounding error. I don't doubt that their actuaries are just as good as GEICO's.

Lest we forget - corporations are people.

[skeaker]

This is not an argument (your situation is non-existent and fallacious) so you've more or less lost this debate here, but I'll give that it was funny.

[greiskul]

So you are saying that you are completely fine with 5 more people being killed, if their family gets money? I don't think thats as ethical a position as you think it is. You are putting human burocracy ahead of human lives.

[NoZebra120vClip]

It's not about "getting money". It's about recourse to the law, it's about humans who take responsibility, and it's about properly assigning liability. A single human life is precious and worth more than gold; you can't put a price on a human life. But in human burocracys, they do that. Perhaps it would be more just if the human drivers were killed in retribution? Death penalty for vehicular manslaughter? I mean, the families don't have to get money. Instead they could just receive front-row tickets in the lethal injection chamber? Is that more just, with less burocracy? We could destroy the cars that kill people, too. How's that? You could crush the car up in a compactor, then extract all the valuable minerals and other material, and award it to the families of the deceased.

Look greiskul, I don't appreciate your attempt to set up a Trolley Problem with my ridiculous and hypothetical scenario that will totally never happen in real life. My comment was intended to highlight the difference of human responsibility, assignment of liability, and recourse to legal means when someone is wronged. Just because the numbers were different in the GP, doesn't change my scenario one iota if you make it 10 and 10, or if you make it 6 minorities and 10 white male landowners, or if you make it 101 Dalmatians and a breeding pair of Tyrannosauri Rex. That wasn't the point.

greiskul, I'll thank you not to make insinuations about my ethical beliefs, especially when those insinuations serve your Trolley Problem agenda. I'm not making an ethical judgement on the state of things today here, I'm simply describing the situation as I see it. The justice system in these United States is set up a certain way, along with insurance adjusters, and the DMV/DOT, and the auto manufacturers and all the regulatory agencies that handle them. Since human dignity is inviolable, and a human life is priceless, I concur that it appears immoral for an insurance company to put a price on that human life, especially a lowball, profitable price.

They say that "money can't buy happiness" but it's a lot more comfortable to do my crying in a Mercedes than on a bicycle.

Unfortunately, SDCs are an excellent method to remove human dignity and living beings from the equation. For better or worse, the roads will be increasingly automated, and there will be fewer humans taking responsibility for their actions on the road. Corporations are people, though, so let's just give them the right to vote and be done with it?