TBH, your objection seems like something that anyone would think of in ten minutes of considering pitfalls. To think that no one at Waymo (or Cruise, or Lyft, etc.) has considered it, you must have a very dim view of their competence.

Nope, not question their competence - I’m questioning where the answers are to the dialogue we should be having surrounding ai cars???? Where the fuck are the answers, what body owns them?

Presumably each company will have their own approaches to these issues. They don't prima facie seem to be issues that require legislation. In that sense, "we" are not having a dialogue about this at all, any more than "we" are having conversation about cyclist detection, because "we" are not building self-driving cars. Waymo, Cruise, etc. are building self-driving cars, and we are not privy to their internal deliberations on these issues.

Thank you for this point.

My mention of “we” though are the consumers who will be paying these companies for rides and presuming they have already thought about these safety issues, yet “we” have no privvy to an understanding about who has approached the issues nor who has the best approach and neither a standard to refer to that “we” can expect the companies to uphold.

That’s the whole point of “us” starting to ask questions.

“So, uh, you want me to fly in your plane, to what standards are these planes built to?”

Oh look, “we” have an FAA who manages all that, regardless of who made the damn plane.

I'm mostly curious what you imagine happens now in your scenarios with owner-driven cars and taxis. It's not like they now lead to better outcomes.

did you not read the terms of service when you opened the car door? they are not responsible.

I'm just imagining opening the door and getting a 10 second long 2000wpm recording of someone reading the TaC.

The silkscreened-onto-the-headliner bright yellow non-removable warnings weren't enough.

NEXT NEXT NEXT NExT OK INSTALL YES