> I would much prefer we think in terms of overall safety. If human drivers have 30000 deaths a year, and switching to autonomous driving results in 1000 deaths per year, we've made progress as a society. We don't need to hunt down and throw people (or cars) in jail for those 1000 deaths.
You may prefer that, but the 1,000 people who wouldn't have died otherwise, well they aren't thinking much, anymore. People aren't numbers whose lives and deaths can be shifted around by the vagaries of the status of AP glitch fixes.
There is a small number of people who die in plane crashes today. Historically, before planes existed there were a much larger fraction of people who died crossing oceans by ship. The handful of people who die in plane crashes "wouldn't have died otherwise", but I think the majority of people agree that planes are the preferred (in terms of safety) way to get across oceans, and they are more or less the only choice for civilians unless they want to take a luxury cruise.
Same thing about cars/trains vs. walking thousands of miles across deserts. Overall more lives are saved, but yes, a small handful of people are going to get hit crossing the road/tracks that wouldn't have gotten hit if cars/trains weren't invented.
Yes, you can say that about many things, which is why safety is paramount. Not an "overall" safety that kills fewer people, but that no additional people will die. There is responsibility incurrred for kiling 1,000 people who wouldn't have otherwise died. It's really a terrible argument to say, "we killed different people."
> The handful of people who die in plane crashes "wouldn't have died otherwise", but I think the majority of people agree that planes are the preferred (in terms of safety) way to get across oceans, and they are more or less the only choice for civilians unless they want to take a luxury cruise.
When a person is hit by a falling plane, there will likely be liablity assigned. Similarly, when someone is run over by an AP navigated car, there will be liability assigned, even if it makes the jobs of engineers more difficult.
> Same thing about cars/trains vs. walking thousands of miles across deserts. Overall more lives are saved, but yes, a small handful of people are going to get hit crossing the road/tracks that wouldn't have gotten hit if cars/trains weren't invented.
Exactly. That is why people and companies are assigned liablity, not just for intentional torts, but for negligence. When people "do things" they are responsible for not creating havoc or destruction, regardless of how helpful their actions otherwise are.
If the walls fall off your house, are you going to thank the building contracter for making the safest house around? Because, the way you are talking, you would be happy to pay for a replacement house without holding that "safest builder" responsible - even if people were crushed by the falling roof.
You may prefer that, but the 1,000 people who wouldn't have died otherwise, well they aren't thinking much, anymore. People aren't numbers whose lives and deaths can be shifted around by the vagaries of the status of AP glitch fixes.