One option is that the state takes on some of the liability to encourage driverless cars. Different countries will have varying appetites for such an approach.
However, if we take into account the probable reduction in car accidents, increased usage of driverless cars could result in very significant savings to the public health system and other government programs especially in regards to ongoing costs associated with disabilities caused by accidents.
Furthermore, networked driverless cars have the potential to significantly improve the efficiency of road usage. This will result in less need to build new roads or widen existing ones as we will be able to move more vehicles per hour through existing roads.
Together these benefits will save governments billions of dollars. Some governments may therefore be wiling to take on the financial costs associated with liability, though they would probably limit the liability as others have suggested.
The flaw in my argument is that it is more likely to make financial sense if all cars are driverless. During the initial period when a small minority are driverless the numbers will not justify the approach. Unless a government is willing to take on a large financial risk for something that is not going to pay off for many election cycles, it is hard to see this happening in the short term.
I am also concerned about this. Autonomous medical nanotechnology has the potential to cause serious issues if safeguards are not built into then. I am not thinking Armageddon scenarios but rather nanotechnology intended for one person being accidentally transferred to someone else and causing them serious harm. I am confident such safeguards can be created and think it is much better to have people studying the issue before it becomes a problem rather than trying to clean up after the fact.
An AI that controls water systems, electricity supply, gas supply etc has the potential to inadvertently cause great harm to humans if it is poorly designed. I doubt the centre will be limiting its thinking to "sentient" AIs. I hope it will also be considering AIs that will become part of our critical infrastructure in the not too distant future.
Slashdot Mirror
One option is that the state takes on some of the liability to encourage driverless cars. Different countries will have varying appetites for such an approach. However, if we take into account the probable reduction in car accidents, increased usage of driverless cars could result in very significant savings to the public health system and other government programs especially in regards to ongoing costs associated with disabilities caused by accidents. Furthermore, networked driverless cars have the potential to significantly improve the efficiency of road usage. This will result in less need to build new roads or widen existing ones as we will be able to move more vehicles per hour through existing roads. Together these benefits will save governments billions of dollars. Some governments may therefore be wiling to take on the financial costs associated with liability, though they would probably limit the liability as others have suggested. The flaw in my argument is that it is more likely to make financial sense if all cars are driverless. During the initial period when a small minority are driverless the numbers will not justify the approach. Unless a government is willing to take on a large financial risk for something that is not going to pay off for many election cycles, it is hard to see this happening in the short term.
I am also concerned about this. Autonomous medical nanotechnology has the potential to cause serious issues if safeguards are not built into then. I am not thinking Armageddon scenarios but rather nanotechnology intended for one person being accidentally transferred to someone else and causing them serious harm. I am confident such safeguards can be created and think it is much better to have people studying the issue before it becomes a problem rather than trying to clean up after the fact.
An AI that controls water systems, electricity supply, gas supply etc has the potential to inadvertently cause great harm to humans if it is poorly designed. I doubt the centre will be limiting its thinking to "sentient" AIs. I hope it will also be considering AIs that will become part of our critical infrastructure in the not too distant future.