Nah even then. Ain't no way Tesla admits fault for anything

Autopilot also turns off on planes when things go wrong.

If an incident is imminent within the next <2 seconds or so, autopilot must take the action or assist in an action. Manual override can happen at any time, but in such a duration it's unlikely and only the autopilot has any chance, therefore it cannot turn off and absolve itself if liability.

It seems reasonable for the autopilot to turn off just before collission, my point was more in the line of "You won't get a penny from Elon".

People who rely on Full Self Driving or whatever it's called now, should be liable for letting a robot control their cars. And I also think that the company that develops and advertises said robot shouldn't get off scot-free but it's easier to blame the shooter rather than the gun manufacturer.

Bro bought a Tesla just 2 years ago. Long after it was very widely known just how much of an arsehole Musk was, and after many other excellent EVs were on the market.

I'll let you draw the conclusions from those facts.

You can think whatever you want, but my experience driving it has been perfectly fine. Range is great, the car is not falling apart like some people claim, it was not delivered with any issues, and chargers are plentiful where I live. Those are the main things I (and many others) care about in a vehicle. I don’t care what the CEO does or says online. I have a Ford as well and couldn’t even tell you who the CEO of Ford is.

So in theory the manufacturer takes responsibility because they trust their software. This puts the oness on them and their insurance, thereby reducing your insurance considerably. In actuality your insurance doesn't go down because insurance companies.

When autonomous cars are good enough to just drive people around then yeah the companies should be liable, but right now they're not and drivers should be fully alert as if they are driving a regular vehicle.

So I say it is law last time I've checked (which is a while back tbh), and you say "no, it should be law" in your opinion. You see it, right?

Autonomous systems aren't that trustworthy yet and you shouldn't drive drunk with them. Are they really advertised that way?

Nah bro if it's the choice between raising insurance cost vs killing people + jail time for manslaughter + eating the guilt for the rest of my life, i'll take the insurance.

Also wth america your capitalism and your priority is wack.

I don't like the spying aspect but it is unironically true that if you slam your brakes at every red light you are driving in a dangerous fashion. It's more so about the pattern than a one off event though.

I mean without getting into the privacy nightmare piece, frequent hard braking probably means you have a habit of following too closely, or not paying attention to potential hazards and covering a brake. So I don't think the car manufacturer should supply it but also think it would be good to let the person with the habit know so that they can learn to be a safer driver?

In the mean time EU will require systems that automatically do emergency breaks and also different signaling for emergency breaks.

Press the drift button?

Making that argument completely closes the door for fully autonomous cars though, which is sort of the Holy grail of vehicle automation.

Fully autonomous doesn't really exist yet, aside from some pilot projects, but give it a decade or two and it will be there. Truly being a passenger in your own vehicle is a huge selling point, you'd be able to do something else while moving, like reading, working or sleeping.

These systems can probably be better drivers than humans, because humans suck at multitasking and staying focused. But they will never be 100% perfect, because the world is sometimes wildly unpredictable and unavoidable accidents are a thing. There will be some interesting questions about liability though.

But a reasonable person would not consider a child capable of driving. An "extremeley advanced algorithm that is better and safer than humans and everyone should use it" is very different in this case. Aftet hearing all the stupid fluff, it is not unreasonable to think that selfdrivong is good.

Also "petal." Wouldn't be surprised if the cybertruck's brake pedal would come off as easily as a flower petal.

The Trolley problem is a schoolbook example of the failure of creed-based philosophy (deontological ethics), but is also used (the various scenarios) to illustrate that circumstances that don't affect the basic scenario or outcome do affect our feelings and our response to the scenario.

It's easier to pull a lever from a remote position than to actually assault someone or kill them by your own hand, for example.

There are other scenarios that don't necessarily involve trolleys, but involve the question of doing a wrongful act in order to produce a better outcome. Ozymandias in The Watchman killing millions of New Yorkers to prevent a nuclear exchange, thereby saving billions of people. (Alan Moore left it open ended whether that was the right thing to do in the situation, but it did have the intended outcome.)

We like the trolley problem because you can draw it easily on the blackboard, but other situations are much better at illustrating how subtle nuance can drastically change the emotions behind it.

Try this one:

The Queen of the land dies. On the day of her sister’s coronation, she declares that Anglicanism is now the faith and Catholics are now unlawful — a reversal of the old order — Catholics are to report to a town or city hall to convert or be executed. You are Catholic. Do you obey the law or flee? And if you obey the law, do you convert or perish at the hand of the state? Do you lie about your faith to state agents or to the national census?

To a naturalist like myself, I'm glad to lie or convert to spare my own life, but to the devout, pretending to be another faith, or converting by force was a terrible sin, so it's a very sober (and historically relevant) look at religious principle.

We've seen a similar phenomenon in some of the red states in the ideology conflict here in the US. There are people eager to kill someone just to have the experience, and who volunteer to hunt targeted groups (trans folk, lately) or as participants in an execution by firing squad. I remember in the John Oliver's first segment on the death penalty (he did a second one recently) executions were stalled due to difficulties obtaining the drugs used in lethal injections, and firing squads were brought up. The expert pointed out the difficulty finding one executioner, let alone seven. The officials suggested recruiting volunteers from the gun-enthusiast citizenry, which the expert saw as naïve.

I can't speak to firing-squad executions during the German Reich and the early stages of the holocaust, but I can speak to the Einsatzgruppen who were tasked with evacuating villages (to mass graves) who harbored Jews, harbored enemies of Germany or otherwise were deemed unworthy of life. The mass executions were hard on the troopers, and as a result Heydrich contended with high turnover rates.

This figured largely into the movement towards the industrialized genocide machine that pivoted around the Auschwitz proof of concept. Earlier phases included wagons with an enclosed back in which the engine exhaust was piped. The process was found to be too slow, and exposed to many service people to the execution process. The death camps were staffed to assure no-one had to interact with the prisoners and process the bodies, so no-one would have to confront the visceral reality of before and after. They were staffed so that anyone who engaged a mechanism was two steps away from the person authorizing (and taking responsibility for) the execution. The guy who flipped the switch was just following orders.

Interestingly, we'd see a repeat of this during the International War on Terror, specifically the Disposition Matrix which lead to executions of persons of interest on the field by drone strike (Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone). During the CIA Drone Strike Programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the drone operation crews suffered from high turnover rate, with operators suffering from combat PTSD from having pulled the trigger on the missile launches. It didn't help they were also required to scan the damage to assess the carnage, and identify the casualties.

Interestingly, this also presented an inverted demonstration of how the human mind can tell the difference between violent video games and the real thing. Plenty of normies play Call of Duty without dealing with the mental after-effects of war, but even when we conduct war operations from continents away, our brains recognize that we are killing actual human beings, and suffers trauma from the act. War continues to be Hell, and video games not so much.

Who's to say that will be immediate? Many people won't be quick to abandon their guaranteed-available vehicle, especially while every house and employer has parking.

It would have to be the manufacturer.

If someone steals your car and kills someone with it, then disappears without ever being identified, the car owner doesn't assume liability. Liability falls on whoever was operating it at the time. If software was driving, then the software company assumes the liability.

It's not the same. When you have a dog you use a leash and, if needed, you can restrain the mouth.

In this case you are not in control. And you can't be. You are just a passenger. And you should have the same responsibility as a passenger in a train: none.

I guess it would be the car maker's responsibility if you are only a passenger in the car.

The premise of memes can be critiqued, just like anything else.

That's why this one doesn't work as a stand-in - you have a lot more agency over what happens, giving you more than 2 options.