What's going to be the rate of 'acceptable loss'? There's an obvious point on the cost curve where companies will begin pushing for driverless tech before the problem is fully solved. Without some standardized 'miles between intervention' requirement that accounts for the externality on innocent bystanders, the emergent behavior will be to remove the human in the loop before the societally optimal point. If I save $100M in staffing costs by firing all my human monitors and only incur $10M in payouts to the people my cars run over, the capitalist choice is clear.
Well, the USA has decided that 1000 deaths/day is acceptable and ignorable as background mortality for sars-cov-2.
I don't believe that autonomous cars are actually feasible in environments that aren't arid/flat Arizona that doesn't have winter so it's kind of a moot point. There isn't and will not be an autonomous car that can drive on winter, snow covered roads with emergent (incorrect) paths that humans flock and follow. If the car does the right thing it'll kill people. But 1000/day? I think they can probably come in under that.
> What's going to be the rate of 'acceptable loss'?
You might think anything less than the current incident rate. But that’s looking at it from a group perspective. From an individual perspective, I’ve never been in an accident in ~25 years of driving, so my requirements might be higher than others to feel like autonomous control is safer.
