No one is talking about accidents where the owner instructed it to make the situation that caused the accident. That is very clearly the owner's fault.
The problem is coming up with the requirements for the hazard analysis. An airplane operates in a very controlled environment. Controlled taxi and runway, controlled airspace. It is done this way so that it is possible to limit the set of requirements such that all are covered. How do you come up with requirements for a hazard analysis on a heavy machine that can be anywhere in the world at any time, driving at any speed? Your set of conditions that the vehicle will encounter are almost limitless.
A human can *always* avoid an accident. If you were driving 30 MPH then maybe you should have been driving 10. On the contrary, a human in an accident with a fully automated car can never avoid it.
This answer is simple. By certifying the AI that they have put in the car, the manufacturer has certified that they have considered any possible such situation and is prepared to take responsibility for what happens. If they can't do that (and I'm not sure anyone working on automated cars can say they can) then the technology and/or people are simply not ready for this. Personally I think it is the current level of technology that is the problem. Corporations are rushing it out the gate based on technology we have now in the quest for profits.
I see no difference between designing calipers for brakes and putting them in a car or designing AI and putting it in a car. If the brakes are installed correctly but the calipers don't stop the car, the driver is not held liable. Likewise with AI. The manufacturer has sold the car with it, barring any kind of outside force the manufacturer had no control over, the manufacturer should be responsible for what happens. If 2 billion lines of code is too advanced for you to certify as safe, then don't certify it and don't put it in a car. It's that simple.
I know that I can drive 10 MPH everywhere if I really want to be safe, and that it is my choice every time I drive. I don't do it except when I feel it is absolutely warranted, but the point is that in a manual car I can be absolutely safe if I want to be. Since this ability is being taken out of my hands when I use an automated car, then I expect the liability will not be mine. From a legal and financial perspective, it doesn't really matter what speed people end up driving and how many accidents they get into. The fact of the matter is, in a manual car they are making the decision to drive how they want to drive and that is WHY they have liability.
The manufacturer is selling you a product that is advertised to make its own decisions. Not even a pet is expected to make its own decisions. Autonomy is pointless if you are responsible for damage that it does even when you are using it correctly. I'll drive myself, make my own decision about the speed I drive with regards to safety, and accept the repercussions of my *own* actions thanks. I expect most people will.
But it is your fault that the pet escaped. No one expects a domesticated animal to be making independent choices, yet that is exactly what an automated car will do. For the first time in world history there will be machines making independent choices. I should be no more responsible for an AI car than I am for a bus that gets into an accident while I'm riding it.
When the manufacturer released the product for sale, they would have a certain specification for safe use. If the equipment is not configured correctly by the company owning it, then it is the companies fault. If there was a safety measure not used by the woman than it is the woman's fault. Otherwise it is the manufacturers fault. Since automated cars will be a matter of getting in and selecting a destination, there is nothing for the user to be liable for and it would always fall to the manufacturer.
Yet if you bought a hammer that was guaranteed to "automatically do all the hammering required to build a house automatically" and you followed all the correct procedures as a user of the hammer but instead when you turned it on it flew off the wall and killed your child, you would likely be suing the maker of said hammer. No hand tool is an apt comparison because by their definition they are not automated so therefore there is always a human to be blamed.
A lot of people are anticipating that "drivers" of automated cars will still require liability insurance, which means the user is liable. I don't think it is right, but a lot of people think it is.
Yeah that's bull. It would be different if you were costing them more somehow from your location, but you living in a place that is low cost is a decision that you made and you should reap the benefits of it. It is not an opportunity for some company to get work for cheap.
I know people in Africa who have to hit the floor everyone a band of warlords comes by. You think a shooting war is something special? People around the world get shot at all the time.
I know someone who had some anger issues and ran afoul for that reason, couldn't take it any more and pushed one of those dimwits against a wall hard. But anger issues are his problem, I'm a fairly patient person so I'll deal with it.
Perhaps if they removed regulations today the difference would be minimal, but you're not taking into account where regulations have gotten us over time. Regulations have let to incremental changes and improvements over years that have made a safe industry. Without regulations ever having existed the industry would be no where near as safe.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is talking about accidents where the owner instructed it to make the situation that caused the accident. That is very clearly the owner's fault.
The problem is coming up with the requirements for the hazard analysis. An airplane operates in a very controlled environment. Controlled taxi and runway, controlled airspace. It is done this way so that it is possible to limit the set of requirements such that all are covered. How do you come up with requirements for a hazard analysis on a heavy machine that can be anywhere in the world at any time, driving at any speed? Your set of conditions that the vehicle will encounter are almost limitless.
A human can *always* avoid an accident. If you were driving 30 MPH then maybe you should have been driving 10. On the contrary, a human in an accident with a fully automated car can never avoid it.
This answer is simple. By certifying the AI that they have put in the car, the manufacturer has certified that they have considered any possible such situation and is prepared to take responsibility for what happens. If they can't do that (and I'm not sure anyone working on automated cars can say they can) then the technology and/or people are simply not ready for this. Personally I think it is the current level of technology that is the problem. Corporations are rushing it out the gate based on technology we have now in the quest for profits.
I see no difference between designing calipers for brakes and putting them in a car or designing AI and putting it in a car. If the brakes are installed correctly but the calipers don't stop the car, the driver is not held liable. Likewise with AI. The manufacturer has sold the car with it, barring any kind of outside force the manufacturer had no control over, the manufacturer should be responsible for what happens. If 2 billion lines of code is too advanced for you to certify as safe, then don't certify it and don't put it in a car. It's that simple.
I know that I can drive 10 MPH everywhere if I really want to be safe, and that it is my choice every time I drive. I don't do it except when I feel it is absolutely warranted, but the point is that in a manual car I can be absolutely safe if I want to be. Since this ability is being taken out of my hands when I use an automated car, then I expect the liability will not be mine. From a legal and financial perspective, it doesn't really matter what speed people end up driving and how many accidents they get into. The fact of the matter is, in a manual car they are making the decision to drive how they want to drive and that is WHY they have liability.
The manufacturer is selling you a product that is advertised to make its own decisions. Not even a pet is expected to make its own decisions. Autonomy is pointless if you are responsible for damage that it does even when you are using it correctly. I'll drive myself, make my own decision about the speed I drive with regards to safety, and accept the repercussions of my *own* actions thanks. I expect most people will.
But it is your fault that the pet escaped. No one expects a domesticated animal to be making independent choices, yet that is exactly what an automated car will do. For the first time in world history there will be machines making independent choices. I should be no more responsible for an AI car than I am for a bus that gets into an accident while I'm riding it.
But if the people using the vehicles pay for the insurance then they are already being made responsible for something they have no control over.
When the manufacturer released the product for sale, they would have a certain specification for safe use. If the equipment is not configured correctly by the company owning it, then it is the companies fault. If there was a safety measure not used by the woman than it is the woman's fault. Otherwise it is the manufacturers fault. Since automated cars will be a matter of getting in and selecting a destination, there is nothing for the user to be liable for and it would always fall to the manufacturer.
A responsible owner trains their pet, but they can't train their automated vehicle. Therefore this is incorrect.
Yet if you bought a hammer that was guaranteed to "automatically do all the hammering required to build a house automatically" and you followed all the correct procedures as a user of the hammer but instead when you turned it on it flew off the wall and killed your child, you would likely be suing the maker of said hammer. No hand tool is an apt comparison because by their definition they are not automated so therefore there is always a human to be blamed.
A lot of people are anticipating that "drivers" of automated cars will still require liability insurance, which means the user is liable. I don't think it is right, but a lot of people think it is.
Yeah that's bull. It would be different if you were costing them more somehow from your location, but you living in a place that is low cost is a decision that you made and you should reap the benefits of it. It is not an opportunity for some company to get work for cheap.
The wife and kids can be told to leave you alone. Co-workers not so much.
I know people in Africa who have to hit the floor everyone a band of warlords comes by. You think a shooting war is something special? People around the world get shot at all the time.
I could use an HDMI to blockchain converter.
Just wait until Apple heralds in the return of the headphone port. On that day the citizens will rejoice.
I find it interesting that Apple's next big corporate direction may have been inspired by Pokemon Go.
I know someone who had some anger issues and ran afoul for that reason, couldn't take it any more and pushed one of those dimwits against a wall hard. But anger issues are his problem, I'm a fairly patient person so I'll deal with it.
A lot of people just call it 'globalism' now.
BAN MEXICAN RAPIST CARDS!
America is beyond protestant work ethic. America is just powerful feeding on less powerful people until the host dies.
But if it has to be one or the other I pick unions. That's the point.
Perhaps if they removed regulations today the difference would be minimal, but you're not taking into account where regulations have gotten us over time. Regulations have let to incremental changes and improvements over years that have made a safe industry. Without regulations ever having existed the industry would be no where near as safe.