Hello André,
...
Let's take another example, if C gives us a car P from manufacturer S,
while insisting that it doesn't happen ever despite S saying
P fails to brake 1% of the time, would you trust C and ride P around?
What would any court thinks if you hit someone with P
and blame C's assurance? Of course, it would be a different scenario
if C withheld the car's model.
So, as I understand it, you are implying that in this situation, if
manufacturer S advertises selfdriving car model P as the solution to
car accidents as they remove the human error factor ("the safest car
ever sold, you must buy it now!") and then sells a billion cars which
would cause ten million of accidents throughout the world every 3
months they could avoid any liability by virtue of inserting a clause
in their contracts saying "we can't promise that car model P won't go
berserk, run accross children on streets, run off clifs or
selfexplode"? And that if I had bought one of these cars I would
become liable for these accidents and even after selling it to you
I'd remain liable in their place?
I find this situation highly unlikely, to say the least. Such
company would have to call and pay back every car they sold and
compensate people individually and collectively for the damages
they've caused.
Having a fine print on terms of use does not equal warning users.
They are selling this to the world as a safe tech that may be used
freely to accomplish almost all - and according to them soon enough
all - intellectual tasks. They are not selling it as digital parrot,
nor as a copy machine and neither as something that massively
violates the rights of others.
I think the car analogy is worth exploring further.
I recall Ralf Nader's involvement with the seatbelt movement.
<content-warning>
h/t Drunk History:
https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=ieYI6Bs2814
</content-warning>
Here is a retrospective opinion from somebody in the industry:
```
“The book had a seminal effect,” Robert A. Lutz, who was a top executive
at BMW, Ford Motor, Chrysler and General Motors, said in a telephone
interview. “I don’t like Ralph Nader and I didn’t like the book, but
there was definitely a role for government in automotive safety.”
If anything, he said, the regulations that followed leveled the playing
field among automakers. “It sets ground rules where everybody has to do
something and nobody has to worry” about being at a competitive
disadvantage, he said.
```
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/automobiles/50-years-ago-unsafe-at-any-speed-shook-the-auto-world.html
Heres suggestions regarding outcomes:
```
Seat belt laws are effective in reducing car crash deaths.[22] One study
found that mandatory-seatbelt laws reduced traffic fatalities in youths
by 8% and serious traffic-related injuries by 9%, respectively.[23]
Primary-seatbelt laws seem to be more effective at reducing crash deaths
than secondary laws.[24][25]
```
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_States#Effectiveness
Ultimately, these trillions of dollars are not being spent out of
beneficence.
I suspect there will be efforts from them concerning standards such as
reproducibility; copyleft; or even classic notions of community.
These people arent going to be patiently waiting many more years to
break even for those reasons,
Kind regards,
Jonathan
