[ajmurmann]

Every statistic I've seen indicated much better accident rates for self-driving cars than human drivers. I've taken Waymo rides in SF and felt perfectly safe. I've taken Lyft and Uber and especially taxi rides where I felt much less safe. So I definitely would take the self-driving car. Just because I don't understand am accident doesn't make it more likely to happen.

The one minor risk I see is the cat being too polite and getting effectively stuck in dense traffic. That's a nuisance though.

Is there something about NYC traffic I'm missing?

[aprilthird2021]

There's one important part about risk management though. If your Waymo does crash, the company is liable for it, and there's no one to shift the blame onto. If a human driver crashes, that's who you can shift liability onto.

Same with any company that employs AI agents. Sure they can work 24/7, but every mistake they make the company will be liable for (or the AI seller). With humans, their fraud, their cheating, their deception, can all be wiped off the company and onto the individual

[ethbr1]

The next step is going to be around liability insurance for AI agents.

That's literally the point of liability insurance -- to allow the routine use of technologies that rarely (but catastrophically) fail, by ammortizing risk over time / population.

[aprilthird2021]

Potentially. I would be skeptical that businesses can do this to shield themselves from the liability. For example, VW could not use insurance to protect them from their emissions scandal. There are thresholds (fraud, etc.) that AI can breach, which I don't think insurance can legally protect you from

[ethbr1]

Not in the sense of protection, but in the sense of financial coverage.

Claims still made: liability insurance pays them.

[ajmurmann]

Sure, that's unrelated though to the question which was if one would feel comfortable taking a self-driving car in NYC