That is exactly what those employees would have to be paid and consent to do—just like test drivers. In fact, someone else linked a Waymo blogpost saying that they have employees do exactly those things (walking into cars’ paths, lying down on skateboards...)

How is it not OK to have consenting people do these things but OK to have random people on the street participate in exactly the same tests?

People willingly operate unsafe machinery in 3rd world country factories but personally I don't think it's OK when they get crippled due to some accident or malfunction.

If all you're testing are scenarios that are known to be safe for the employee in question, then what exactly are you gaining from that testing?

Again:

> How is it not OK to have consenting people do these things but OK to have random people on the street participate in exactly the same tests?

Are you seriously saying Waymo’s (for example) testing practices are worse than just testing unsafe software in public?

It's not a matter of whether they are better or worse, it's a matter of whether these tests are sufficiently realistic.

Anyone with half a brain would hopefully quickly realize that you don't actually need a live person to lay down on a skateboard. Heck, you can simulate a much more risky jaywalking scenario with a mannequin on a dolly than with a living person.

Waymo is deploying its fleets on public roads too, which suggests to me that they think that private course tests can only get you so far.

> Waymo is deploying its fleets on public roads too, which suggests to me that they think that private course tests can only get you so far.

No, it just suggests that building and operating huge private courses that realistically emulate daily traffic situations in cities is much more expensive than just (ab)using the "real" public infrastructure paid for by tax dollars for your beta-testing needs, and that Waymo (just like Uber) takes full advantage of this chance to privatize gains and socialize losses.