The problem is where people set up the goal posts and have a double standard for human vs. ai driven cars. AI cars, for some reason, are expected to produce an error rate of 0 right off the bat and ever single incident gets used to feed an existing (and often legitimate) narrative about tech bro laziness and irresponsibility.
Meanwhile 1.25 million people die in human caused car accidents every year and somewhere around an additional 30 million are injured. But that’s “just the world we live in.” Or that’s “your choice to take a risk when you choose to drive a car.” Or whatever.
A lot of criticism of our industry is well-deserved if overly broadly applied. Most companies do not operate with the total lack of ethics that Uber and Facebook do. But they are so big and so well-known, they’ve come to symbolize a culture of amorality, deception, manipulation, and a willingness to do anything for growth and fresh injections of VC funding.
What would be really useful for everyone is to throw out that narrative for a while and focus on the task at hand. Self-driving cars will be regulated. There’s no getting around that. And tech companies could help themselves out a lot by accepting that and coming to the table with regulators with an actual plan instead of whining about having their innovation stifled.
There is a reasonable compromise. You can’t start by saying the error rate must be at zero. That will never get anywhere and people will keep dying a million a year. Where is the right number and what does it measure? I don’t know. It should probably be tiered by population density and average driving conditions and weighted by number of annual deaths in that city/region.
Highways are an easier problem to solve than, say, Manhattan. But highway deaths are more likely to be fatal. So the standards ought to apply differently.
The challenge here is really to get regulators to think a little bit like problem solvers rather than enforcers for a change. To get them to realize that “regulate self driving cars” is a problem so big and mushy that it’s pretty much meaningless. But “establish safety standard for interstate travel for autonomous trucks” is something you can work with. Maybe it’s 100x as a safe as a human driver in that scenario. I don’t really know.
Tech companies could probably turn on a lot of positive PR if they promoted milestones for certain communities. Maybe even offered incentives for cities to improve road markings. Like if Waymo said, “We want to target Brooklyn, and our goal is 10x as safe as human drivers in Brooklyn with an additional target of 1000x fewer cycling accidents. But we need you to mark the bike lanes better and put them between the parked cars and the curbs where it’s feasible, and here’s a pile of money you can use to do it.” That would generate a lot of good will, positive pr, and maybe even genuine enthusiasm that they can use to open up that market for their taxis ahead of schedule.
The car companies will get a lot better treatment from regulators if they chunk the problem into small pieces and go to the negotiating table without a victim chip on their shoulder.